I understand that, but what is a subpoena worth in a court in another country? Generally nothing, really. Sure if you fail to show up for a civil trial in another court they could find against you because you didn't show up but they still won't be able to get far with that unless you have assets in that country that they can seize.

I can understand companies wanting to avoid dealing with it in the US court if they can, but I don't see the point of being so paranoid about it in other countries.

I don't see any reason to be afraid of being sued by Russian criminals. A few jobs ago I once had a webpage up (which attracted very little attention) that somewhat similarly exposed a particular registrar as being overwhelmingly spammer-friendly. My employer got nervous and pulled down said web page on my behalf (it was being hosted on their server at the time - yeah, I should have had it elsewhere) because they were afraid of being sued.

Frankly I don't see any reasone why it would even be a bad thing to be sued by these goons. They usually are doing their "business" in countries that don't have any kind of extradition (yeah, I know that usually doesn't matter in civil suits) agreements with the US or any other way to force me to show up for their lawsuit or be bound by its findings.

After all, once you account for all the drugs (and other stupid things) that he has done he is well over 2,000 years old. He doesn't remember anything before WWII but you can explain that through his drug use as well.

http://xkcd.com/1400/

You seem to have larger contiguous chunks of free time than I. I haven't had time yet to go through the large chunk of text that you most recently provided random running commentary on. Once I get to that I will offer up another part of the manifesto.

Your taunting won't help any part of your cause, though.

You really are running quite the game of interference there when you write that while accusing me of trolling.

OK, you came back as close to reality as to no longer be trying to call for the Lawnchair administration to be assassinating random Americans in the US to advance their NWO agenda. Unfortunately you only went as far back towards reality as to claim that the administration was not directing the killings. You then went right back off the deep end in the supposition that the administration is spending until quadrillions of dollars concocting untold billions of different plans to be able to at a moments notice spring the NWO upon us should the right death occur somewhere in the country.

I guess, then, it is good for you that the Lawnchair administration is so wholly inept at actually deploying such plans as to have not managed to make even one of them work so far. It's a good thing we can count on good citizens like you to warn us about their attempts to roll out such plans, or given a few more thousand years they just might by chance succeed with one!

There is more at play here than just people afraid of actual scientific data ever being generated in regards to climate change. Remember that most of the GOP is strongly anti-science in virtually every aspect - and even more so when it is science funded by the federal government. The GOP will be spending untold millions the next couple years to try to uncover loose change like this to try to slow down science as much as possible. This first hearing alone likely cost the taxpayer more than the total sum of the wasteful spending.

Well it appeared that you started off by trying to offer up a conspiracy theory where the Lawnchair Administration intentionally set up for these guys to be killed so that they could declare martial law and unleash a New World Order upon us. Then in the end you were trying to claim that this is somehow exactly the same as features that are not part of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Along the way you included an irrelevant quote.

The only truth in your statement is that you shared two whackjob conspiracy theories that previously had no meaningful connection, and you maintained that status quite beautifully.

At least your most recent bit on the Communist Manifesto included some truth to it. Too bad I can't say the entirety of it was truthful.

That statement was so far off the deep end that I don't even know where to begin to reply to it. I could point out that it wandered so far as to quite nearly end up arguing both side of the argument that it started out trying to partake in, but that is sufficiently apparent on its own.

Which is probably part of why on the federal level in 2010, only 11 out of 162,000 did not. A phrase that has seen an increase in use recently regarding US grand juries is " a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to ""indict a ham sandwich". For better, worse, or neither though this is how we do it in this country. Being as the supreme court of the US is supposed to be the final arbiter of constitutionality, you could argue that the DA in Ferguson committed an unconstitutional act by acting counter to the statement of the supreme court in regards to presenting a case to a grand jury.

The thing that power wheels toys really need is remote controls. When your kids are learning to drive them the kids are too capable of getting them stuck on dumb stuff and not capable enough of getting them back out. A remote control - especially one that could put the thing into reverse - would be a huge benefit.

My understanding is that the general reason why a grand jury is called is to get a "stamp of approval" to show that there is reason to proceed to trial. No guilt is determined by a grand jury, they are only supposed to say whether or not the state has a case. It would seem the grand jury is called just to have a separate set of eyes look at the case to prevent the DA from bringing up dodgy charges and wasting the state's time and money on a full trial.

Normally in a grand jury hearing the suspect would not present their side, and some times the suspect would not even be named to anyone beyond the jury. This time the DA not only included testimony from the suspect but he basically presented the suspect's defense.

In other words there is an innate conflict of interest for a DA to present charges against a law enforcement officer to a grand jury. We saw this conflict front-and-center in this case.

Indeed the DA could have skipped the grand jury phase entirely. Also interesting is that in a study of federal grand jury cases (this was not federal but state grand jury info is harder to come by), there were 162,000 grand jury hearings in 2010 - and only 11 did not return indictments.

The primary structure for double-stranded DNA is most often a double helix. Single stranded will try to form similarly complementary structures to minimize unbalanced charges. However from the primary structure you can get into secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures that go well beyond that. One really good example is the structure of a chromosome which starts with double-stranded DNA (as a double helix) wrapping around histones to form chromatin. From there it condenses further, eventually reaching the level of a chromosome with several steps along the way.

We also know that DNA can form interesting shapes as single-stranded forms that can bind to a lot of non-nucleic-acid molecules (Aptamers being good examples of these).