Construct mighty engines of fearsome complexity and madness-inducing size to redirect the gyronormous aetheric power of these "tornadoes" towards the hated enemy.
Nobody thinks cyclopean these days, that's what's wrong with society.
I love my nook. The form factor is perfect, the interface is almost perfect (please let me have several books open at once and let me scribble notes), and I have a snazzy embossed leather covering so they'd better not alter the shape or size of any future models. Also user-changeable batteries for longevity would be splendid. Besides that though screen contrast is the only needed improvement, no attaching LEDs to the inner face isn't the same thing. Actually i could go for customised bodywork too if they made the design moddable.
Elite did something similar as far as I recall.
Almost no electrical energy is produced using oil, as far as I'm aware.
Indeed, and I'm unclear as to why you'd want to crawl along the underside of the ice in any case when you can just... swim.
I'm thinking first world problems here.
Find the pause button on your forks folks.
I'll take the cold any day. It's easier and usually more fun to warm up than it is to cool off.
Also, snoooowwwwwww!
Yeah I was hoping for some steampunk goodness as well, a la Brisco County Jr.
In other news you cannot, cannot have an article about wacky war machines without prolific pictures, it contravenes no less than six seperate articles of the Internet Convention on Clickbait Guidelines.
Cosmic inflation has always puzzled me - so the distance between particles of matter is slowly widening, without the particles themselves actually moving, why can't we observe this at the molecular level? Or do we? Even if its only a miniscule expansion at the smallest scales it must surely show some sign, and wouldn't it have some effect on say chemical interactions?
The problem is we need to actually talk about what's going on, not misinterpret the data. It's profoundly disturbing to me that your original post was just modded up without evidence, since it implies that many people here just assume what you say is true... even though it's not.
Against a backdrop of spiralling male suicides, title IX abuses in many colleges, massive gender based sentencing disparities, “predominant aggressor” policies in domestic violence and many more issues it can hardly be a surprise that the widening gap between men and women in third level education is cause for concern and indeed serious questioning as to why females are getting special treatment> when they're already ahead by most metrics.
Having more women with better credentials might allow them to advance more easily and solve the pay equity problem.
There is nothing stopping women from making the same decisions as successful men - no discriminatory laws or policies, no patriarchy lurking in the background twirling its moustache. The differences in average pay are due to life choices, experience, qualifications and hours worked.
Hmm, that's an interesting point. So, you don't feel that these graphs are something worth talking about?
Of course its the feminist argument. Create a false perception of victimisation both current and historical (the latter in particular being foundational to the fable of patriarchy theory), find an eMANnuel goldstein to blame for it, then cast feminism as the only possible solution to these monstrous injustices. Why do you think so many people found that tiny historical snippet so interesting? And there's much more out there.
So much more.
I'm not sure it works on people without chronic alopecia. It probably has no effect on age related male pattern baldness, given its original purpose.
So tell me, who is lying here: http://www.avoiceformalestuden...
Because these two sets of data appear to directly contradict one another. The only disparity I can see is that the NY Times graphs specify a particular age group, why, I don't really know.
So the disabled, those suffering from illness, the elderly and those who can't pass the military fitness test should not be allowed to participate in democracy.
The sentiments are not mine, merely pointing out that the feminist myth that women had no rights before the 1970s is just that. A myth.
If that is the current law then you have a legitimate reason to protest. I'm no expert on US law but in most developed countries divorce law splits assets fairly, without favouring either gender. Child support is paid to which ever parent ends up with the children.
Really? Here's the current state of affairs in Ireland, for example:
99 percent of Irish husbands lose their homes during divorces
Judges frequently make child maintenance orders against men on state benefits whose marriages have broken down - leaving many living below national insolvency guidelines, below subsistence levels
In seven out of ten cases the judge ordered a transfer of the property into the wife’s name
During 160 contested cases when an order was made to sell the home the wife received more than half of the proceeds in 25 percent of the cases, during the other 75 percent the proceeds were split
Joint custody does not mean shared parenting, with children in more than nine out of 10 cases living with their mothers- the "standard access" for married dads to their children after separation is "a couple of hours" every second week, with a few hours once or twice during the week
In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge
A significant number of divorce cases take eight years or more to be concluded
Divorce in Ireland costs on average €30,000
100% of maintenance orders, both child and spousal maintenance, are made in favour of the wife
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission
