It's far simpler to make the woman responsible for the expense of raising the child, with shared financial responsibility a contractual possibility prior to consentual sex (and the likely arrangement) and allow for contracts to abort in the event of contraceptive or sterilization failure to be enforceable at law.

Voluntarily having children that one can't afford (to some minimum income level) should be a crime, with reasonable government insurance available against income loss.

Right now, these "laws to prevent freeloaders" encourage defrauding men for their semen. And really, the welfare recipient is ALREADY a freeloader.

Yeah, I know: rich dude fucks poor stupid woman, and she's stuck with the kid. But, in that case, he took financial advantage of her. If it could be proven, he can be held responsible absent a support contract. The point is the burden of proof of fraud or commitment to support should be on the one bringing the child into the world, espescially in a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.

No, men don't have a choice if contraception or sterilization fails. Women can always chose to abort. Contracts to abort in event of contraceptive or sterilization failure are unenforceable at law.

Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if their semen is stolen out of a used condom. It has happened, and the argument is that the child's needs for support outweigh the father's rights to not be made a slave.

Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if they donate semen for artificial insemination, and later the child goes on welfare, with exceptions existing only if the sperm donation was done under state guidelines.

Feric sulphate has an additional advantage: it stops the "Shake and Bake" production of meth cold by converting the lithium used to Lithium Amide: LiN2. It's been suggested as an instant cold pack additive for that reason.

"Shake and Bake" meth production involves generating ammonia in-situ with the reaction of NaOH (drain cleaner) with NH4NO3 (instant cold packs). This dissolves in some organic solvent, like methyl ethyl ketone, in which one has already dissolved pseudo-ephedrine. The presence of lithium (from batteries) results in a "Birch-like" reduction (sodium in anhydrous ammonia) of the pseudo-ephedrine to methamphetamine. The organic layer is filtered off, and the filtrate "crashed" with hydrigen chloride gas (from a battery acid/salt generator) to yield crystals of crude methamphetamine hydrochloride. The production of ammonia also results in production of water, and water is sometimes introduced at the start to kick-start the reaction.

The "cooking" (prior to filtration and crashing with HCL) generally takes place in a sealed soda bottle, with all reagents present. Besides the pressure buildup from the ammonia gas (requiring periodic "burping" of the bottle), a signficant side reaction of 2Li + 2H2O -> 2LiOH +H2(g) is exothermic, and can both igniite the H2 (and organic solvent) if any oxygen is present, as well as possibly have the lithium melt through the plastic wall of the container (which will then expose the contents to atmospheric oxygen, possibly igniting them).

It's amazing that people resort to doing this.

Now, lithium and ammonia will react to produce lithium amide: Li + 2NH3 -> LiN2 + 3H2, and the reaction is exothermic, but it requires a high activation energy, so is usally slow enough to ignore in this case. Iron ions catalyse this, and the production of Lithium Amide kills the Birch-like reduction cold. Thus, it has been suggested to add iron salts to instant cold packs so they can't be used as a source of ammonia for "shake and bake" meth synthesis. The reader is left to figure out how this can be overcome.

Note: this was intended for educational purposes. I strongly discourage meth production. The process above is extremely dangerous, and the product is really bad for your health. It should be necessary to state that producing methamphetamine is illegal as well. Attempts to make it "safe" generally involve trying to keep the lithium floating on the organic solvent layer while the water is being produced below it. However, periodic shaking tends to bring the two together for brief periods, until the reaction between them is quenched once the bottle is stilled and the lithium floats to the top of the organic solvent layer again. I learned about it while researching solvated electrons. Seriously, the process described is already "all over the internet".

... the more I think it might be lawful to kill you.

It's that simple.

Now, I don't think one has any expectation of privacy in open, public, places, but how long before this notion extends to blanket violations of the fourth amendment to be secure in one's person and papers (and homes)?

I further am not advising killing anyone, but merely considering the lawfulness of killing those who, particularly entrusted to uphold the Constitution, chose to blatently violate it. Personally, I'd rather they stand trial for treason, knowing full well that at some point that may become utterly impractical, leaving violence as a last resort. That would be a sad day.

160 uJ, give or take.

Yeah, BINDERE DUNDAT.

c. 1977, cutting my teath on "real programming" in Fortran, and CDC 6600 Assembler with punched cards (post HP2000 Basic -- everyone starts with Basic - in high school). We did have a few plugboard computers, including at least one analog computer, as well.

Well, compared to dioxygen diflouride (a.k.a. FOOF, which explodes on contact with just about anything above -300 F), or chlorine triflouride (which can set sand and asbestos on 'fire'), hydrogen is quite safe, yes.

Washington, 2010. He's been "difficult" since day 1: fussy to get to sleep, night terrors, raging when not getting his way, etc. (Then-)wife and I could not agree to discipline - contributed to divorce. (I have custody now). Basically, she'd give him whatever he wanted because he was the "miracle baby" after four miscarriages.

Lots of psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. ODD, CD, SID, ADHD. Currently on Focalin XR to stimulate him for school, and then clonadine to bring him down to sleep.

Have 21 page psychological evaluation that suggests locking him up since he is a potential danger to self and others. State refuses, insurance refuses, and the cost is $400/day.

FINALLY, the local police have stopped believing his lies of abuse.

In this instance, it does not take a lot to get probable cause for child abuse: all you need is a screaming child, with a (self-inflicted) bruise, and an allegation, together with witnesses claiming the child was strangled, because the child screamed he was strangled, yet with no evidence of same. All because he did not want new shoes.

In 2011, he tried to push his 18 year old sister out a second story window on a concrete slab, after breaking her laptop. She grabbed at his hair to save herself, and was almost arrested for it. She is facing assault charges for allegedly kicking him to retrieve car keys he had stolen from his mother.

I am required to have a nanny to protect HIM from HER!

It's only a matter of time before someone tries to assasinate this treasonous monster.

Though, I'd be a lot more satisfied if her were tried, convicted, and lawfully executed for treason.

Yeah, yeah, put me on one of your damn lists.

About the time when a child could injure themselves in some minor way, and tell someone "Daddy did this to me" because they were denied some toy they wanted.

Been, there, done that, spent four days in jail because my nine year old didn't want new shoes, and I failed to observe what he was doing with the seatbelt buckle (jabbing it into his abdomen to leave a bruise).

These days, a child calling 911 and saying they're scared becaue they don't get some treat is taken as probable cause of abuse (the child's purported fear, that is). Add to that laws that establish a child under 13 lacks the ability to know right from wrong, and therefore mens rea to commit a crime, and you have children, not parents, in control.

(emphasis mine)

Quoting the Grand^x parent in context.

From what i recall reading, female porn actresses earn far more than their male counterparts. Where is the discrimination again?

Maybe. Maybe not. Do YOU want to take the chance?

Face it. Talk of "lists" and presidentially-ordered assasinations has a HUGE chilling effect on free speech, essential to protecting our liberties.

I expect there should be millions, no, tens of millions, of Americans, crying "Foul!" But, a large percentage are scared.

Well, fuck that. Who am I to call for others to point to the president and cry tyrant, if I lack the courage to do so myself?

I'm not pointing a gun. I'm not suggesting circumventing the law, only that he be held to it, like the rest of us.

I point, and I acuse. Perhaps it may induce others to have more courage and do the same. Perhaps out voices might become deafening.

Then again, perhaps not, but it is certain they won't if I stay silent.

Yeah, I expect that.

Come and get me. I fucking dare ya!

I sincerely believe in dying on my feet instead of living on my knees if necessary.

Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.

Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.

Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.

I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.

Oh, I do: a constitutional ammendment that allows one who's rights are being trampled by government to defend commensurately not only against said level of government, or their agents, but to retaliate with equal force against those having a hand electing said government, and their progeny, who have not come to my aid.

This holds *the people*, collectively, and individually, responsible for the government they elect, and one would expect *the people*, collectively, and individually, to make a far bigger noise if they see government violating someone else's rights.

Basically, if the police are bashing down my door, without a warrant, and not under exigent circumstances, I can lawfully kill them AND any neighbors, who are ALSO not killing them, and their kids .

Make people accountable for the government they have a part in electing by demanding eternal vigilance on their part, lest they, or their offspring, die, for failing in this responsibiity.

The tragic flaw of democracy (direct or otherwise) is the alure of power benefiting one group without responsibility for it harming another.

The U.S. Constitutuion is pretty good, as far as rights go, but it fails on the part of responsibilities.

Yes, I know that in a shootout between a drug lord and police, it may be difficult to tell who's in the right. But an armed neighborhood demanding the violence stop, lest all participants be killed, and letting the courts sort it out, strikes me as not such a bad thing.