I believe the phrase you're looking for is "ultra homogenized", not "ultra pasteurized".

Fun fact, pasteurizationactually actually doesn't require all that much heat - the standard "high temperature, short time" pasteurization heats the milk to 71.7 degrees C for 15-20 seconds. This results in 5-log reduction in microorganisms (99.999% kill rate).

No. But since fatality rate per 100,000 workers is an annual figure, not a career figure, it actually works in exactly the opposite direction as you probably would have assumed. The figure means that for every 100,000 ranchers, you can expect about 42 ranchers to die in work-related accidents every year, not just at some point in their entire careers. Working well beyond normal retirement would compound that risk further. Retiring earlier means less likelihood of dying in a work-related accident.

Although I imagine there's a pretty big difference between fresh new cops who get put on the streets and the older cops who have been there for a few decades and have seniority to get the less-dangerous desk jobs.

The purpose of teaching is that you learn, most importantly, how to learn. What you were learning was how to avoid learning (things that you deemed unimportant to remember). Both skills might have useful applications to your adult life, but you were doing yourself a disservice by short-circuiting the learning process.

It was a fairly basic, conceptual-level question.

A graphic of the periodic table was displayed, with the elements Ar, Cl, He, N, and Zn highlighted. The text of the question asked which element would have chemical properties most similar to Ar. As long as you know that the table is arranged so that elements in vertical columns share similar chemical properties, you'll get it correct.

link

n/t

Maybe it was "Firstname Lastname, Rep." or "Rep. Firstname Lastname". Whatever it is, it's common and it always confuses me.

The comparison I made was between children of non-immigrants in California, and the rest of the US, some of which states have very low immigrant populations and still approximately a 60% fail rate. The highest states were only about 44% passing.

Comparing immigrant children to immigrant children is a completely different tactic and one of the links in TFA already did it, so if that tickles your fancy, it'll probably be more relevant to your interest than my comment was.

If you have never, ever read Firstname Lastname (Rep) and not mistakenly extended that abbreviation into "Republican" rather than Representative, you are some kind of superhuman, because I know I have to do a mental check every damn time I see it.

...which would put them about on par with the rest of the US, actually...

I find it hard to believe that the first can't understand that you can't swim under a continent for the same reason you can't swim underwater from my swimming pool to the one next door. And there is nothing wrong with living with your parents. Having money doesn't mean you have to spend it. Some people can actually stand to be around their parents.

Anyway, here's a few less-impressive but still revealing facts:

41% of public school students in California live in homes where the most frequently spoken language is not English. [1].doc

English fluency rate in the LA school district has risen from a mere 16% in 2001 to an unsatisfying 49% in 2005. [2]

If the test was given in English, then everyone who took it was an English learner, and, unless they've stopped learning, is still an English learner.

The problem appears to be that they have defined "English learner" as "child who spoke a language other than English at home prior to learning English". That is not what "English learner" means.

I, for one, would appreciate if people writing English would write in such a way for fluent English readers to understand what they're saying.

85% of California students speak fluent Spanish [PDF]

Related? Unrelated? You be the judge.

That's what I thought you meant. And yeah, I disagree with the logic behind those laws.

Pretty screwed up, yes, but not punishable, I don't believe, unless they're first offered counseling to help them avoid acting on their desires and/or shift their fantasies into more acceptable domain, without the severely life-altering consequences that are presently not only likely but almost certain. If they're unresponsive or uncooperative, then perhaps more severe actions should be taken.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. And then masturbate. Both of which make them feel better about their own miserable selves. And as long as they're not starting fires, I don't see the harm. People will do desperate things when they're suffering from severe depression. Self-harm or drinking your liver to death are probably more harmful physically; bizarre and socially unacceptable fetishes are probably more damaging to the psyche. All of it just tends to build a moat around the depressed individual and distance him/her from society, fostering a growing illusion of a desert island - far from any help, and more importantly, not worth helping anyway. Yes, some counseling would probably help, but prison certainly won't.

I don't believe that most pedos are happy about the way they are. And the ones who're complacent in the fact are that way because they've been hardened by hiding it for so long. My opinion. Probably could be backed up by medical fact, but I don't have the facts, so ... take it for whatever you think it's worth.

Not a problem. Thanks too for a reasoned conversation; often as not it's just trolls throwing accusations of pedophilia to see if they strike a nerve.

I'll brag a little, I beat him by 4 hours.

If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul.

In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.

The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.