I think you have to look at where the funding comes from for Republican and conservative causes. Don't just look at candidate funding, even election advertising has a lot of funding that isn't straight to the candidate.

Although there might be no shortage of self-employed Republicans, they don't really call the shots for the party. It's the very deep pockets who do.

The UK is Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, some other pieces, and some of those are partially self-governing (I don't know much about how the Irish Free State works, etc). And then we have the ex-colonies and client states which still consider the Queen their head of state.

Yes, Jane did say pretty clearly

which specifically excludes the scenario you describe.

have a great deal of respect for you

Sorry, I should have made it more obvious that I was writing tongue in cheek about the monarchy. Not about SpaceX though. I'm pretty impressed.

It doesn't work to do this with a democratic government. We need a monarchy :-(

It seems to me that SpaceX is on the path to a solution that might be affordable by a single administration, though.

Consider $(DICK_HARD) to be a meta-variable indicating consumption of media for the purpose of sexual stimulation, indicated by the release of dopamine in the brain, possibly accompanied by a corresponding gender-appropriate physical manifestation.

The correlation found by the study is between (possibly) self-reported hours of consciously choosing to watch porn and physical brain measurements. The correlation is real. Haggling over what is and isn't porn is not going to accomplish anything except making you feel better about your own porn consumption. Just because *almost* everybody does it does not mean that there are no harmful effects. And just because *most* people who say they don't are lying about it doesn't mean that all people who say they don't are lying about it.

Probably this one:

http://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU

This video started a journey for me that is still continuing. Anyone interested should check out the links in the About text on the YouTube page.

The correlation reported in the study was relative to hours per week (actually, the square root of that), so although there were no full abstainers there were some participants who watched less porn than others.

If it makes your dick hard, it's porn.

That's easy, but subjective. There is a wide range of subject matter that is porn for *somebody*, but not necessarily everybody. Since the study measures consumption is hours per week, it would appear that the data for hours is self-reported, so each subject applies their own definition to their viewing habits

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

NT4 at the same level as 95? NT4 was rock solid for me, and I stuck with it until EOL, and moved to XP64. Currently prepping to move to Win7 but only because of EOL on XP. And Vista SP1 still had some quirks that put it farther down on my list.

Except for those, it's a pretty good list.

Lack of planning is the problem. On a cost per square foot basis, temporary classrooms are very close to the same as new construction. The primary difference is lead time. A new construction project can take a couple of years, just for the construction, disregarding whatever political process leads up to the school board deciding to pull the trigger. On the other hand, temporary classrooms can be set up in a few weeks. My school district has done plenty of both over the last several years, including both new schools at new sites and expansions to existing schools. New construction has decreased the need for trailer parks at schools, but not eliminated it.

If Boeing was interested in getting people into space, more than a handful of them would be there. The fact is that it has taken a company that was outside of the system, with a tiny fraction of Boeing's funding, to make more progress than Boeing has.

And of course it's in the U.S. interest to make sure the Russians have an active and completely up-to-date source of rocket engines for their nuclear missles.

In this vein, I wonder what it is we are paying the Chinese to do?