If you're going to take my 2-year-old car and stick half a tank of diesel in it, you can at least help conduct an experiment to see if my thinking as to the appropriate solution is right. Turns out it was. Common sense at the time would have been to drain the tank (after cursing them out for being so negligent). I figured that common sense is often wrong, and that the gasoline pickup, which floats in the tank, so why not just fill it up with gas and drive?

It beats having to properly dispose of half a tank of diesel contaminated with the gas that was left at the bottom of the tank, and it's cheaper. Plus, I was not getting out of bed at 2 am to deal with this.

Read the article. It gives the numbers, as well as other info :-) Or if you don't feel like it, 17% of the tests that were run by different labs came back with different interpretations. So, about 1 in 6.

Feel better now? You asked a very specific question, I gave an answer, plus a supplemental answer, based on verifiable facts.

The US already has de facto bigamy. It's even on TV - see Sister Wives - and this court judgment striking down the ban on bigamy Mostly, it's being ignored because the laws might not survive a constitutional challenge. So, that's how US law handles bigamy, and you could have found this with the easiest of searches.

Next time, instead of asking a question to score points, how about you do a little research first :-)

Looks more like a sex toy after the dog has been chewing on it.

Oops, should have said "just after an economic boom". Sorry. And honestly, I wouldn't even execute Hitler or anyone else on the list. It's not a moral or ethical question - more along the lines of "why bother?" When all the arguments are said and done, it's more bother than it's worth. The dead won't sleep better in their graves. The living won't get closure (what a stupid idea). So, aside from revenge, why bother? It's simply not worth the hassle. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is as nutty as some of these people.

Diesel is actually going to remove less lubricant from parts than gasoline. Back in the days of carburetors, it wouldn't to any more harm than when you have a sticky pushrod and pour a stream of automatic transmission fluid down the carb while modulating the throttle to keep it from stalling, or doing the same thing with a pint of water to blast carbon buildup in the cylinder head(s) to stop engine run-on from hot spots.

Besides, waiting for the AAA to have a car towed in the middle of the night during a snow storm when the person has things to do isn't the best option. And it doesn't require you getting your hands dirty, so what's the big deal?

I thought the poster was lauding the woman who defended her dissertation. My bad. Which ring of hell do you wish me to descend to?

From the Sidney Morning Herald:

Ignoring the fact that the US and China (and over 100 other countries) have signed the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits establishing military bases on other planets, just who would you be defending from / attacking from a Mars military base? Martians who want a second War of the Worlds?

The article says it's the interpretation. So does the summary. You can't say it's a vague article if you didn't read it. The actual article gives the hard numbers.

This isn't the first time either - up here investigative tv journalists sent samples from each test subject to several different labs and the companies refused to be interviewed to explain why the results came back different depending on which company did the test.

And what is the impetus for collecting more data? It's not because the tests and their interpretations are giving accurate results all the time, that's for sure.

An investigative TV news program here did their own study - sent samples from the same people to different labs, and got back different results. The tests do often get it wrong.

Gene testing results are open to interpretation. What to do with the results is also open to interpretation, by both doctors and the patients. Times change, improved processes will result in different interpretations based on better knowledge of the weight each gene variant should be given.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have found that in the 11% that were compared by more than 1 company, 17% came back with differing interpretations. That's alarming.

So what do you do - get 3 tests and let the majority inform your decision?

FTFY

Nah, they're just a Godwin Nazi. :-)

Godwin right there in the summary - how often do you see that