Naked Roseanne Barr eating weird Boy Choi? (DO NOT WANT)^20, pass the jumbo bottle of brain bleach please.

Whoosh...

Dr. Noah's bacillus?

Yes. At the very least, the proposed tax should be multiplied by [ (number of axles) - 1 ].

I'm betting it's something similar to the Beer Can House.

And there are some people for whom that is not a want but a NEED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

The computer of a programmer working on the design of a new piece of classified military hardware isn't going to be able to connect to the open Internet. If the security of the system is sufficiently important, the machine may not be allowed to connect to any network at all.

Develop a drilling or excavation machine that can operate mostly autonomously (ideally, using something like industrial lasers to avoid mechanical wear on the drilling apparatus) and send one or more to Mars several years/decades ahead of when you want to send the humans. Have them drill at a downward angle into the side of a crater, and once you've gone sufficiently far then start having them dig or drill to the side. Ideally, by the time the colonists reach Mars all they need to do is install airlocks at the entrances, pump in breathable air, and maybe knock down the (hopefully thin, by this point) walls between the side tunnels so you don't have to go outside to visit the neighbors. There may be some leaks but hopefully the colonists can make some sort of cement out of the Martian dirt to plug them.

The Forth day was yesterday. Today is the 5th.

Or it may have been contamination from the fracking process. Emphasis on the "may". It would be nice to do a little more investigation to determine where the contaminants actually came from. If it was a one-time accident (the leak in the storage tank) then the levels of the contaminants are unlikely to rise (assuming the accident doesn't recur) and the further investigation should show that. In that case, there doesn't seem to be any further action required (other than making sure the accident doesn't recur.) If it was a result of the ongoing fracking process, and an investigation of the process shows "bugs" that caused the contamination, the company should be required to fix those bugs in the process or otherwise improve the process to avoid or reduce further contamination.

This investigation detected the odor of smoke in the air. It may be from a birthday candle or it may be from a house burning down. We probably should figure out which of those is happening.

Yeah, after three years with a "regular" Eco-Drive, I *really* want the model that sets itself with the Atomic Clock in Denver. I'd never have to touch anything again!

That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:

You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).

Then you didn't actually read my post. I wrote " If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism." If the reviewer thought that gender bias could have crept into the paper, THAT is what the reviewer should have commented. Instead, the reviewer said "get a man to co-write this with you, because they're better writers." If you don't see the difference, I sure hope a similar example didn't come up during your defense.

Because the reviewer only talked about the potential, and did not find any actual gender bias in the article. I would be willing to bet that the article contains several examples and red flags of gender bias. If the reviewer had FOUND and could name "ideologically biased assumptions" or gender bias in the writing, then the reviewer would have a legitimate criticism of the article. If the reviewer had a counter-example to refute the article, then there would be a legitimate criticism. If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism.

Bottom line, the reviewer criticized the authors, not the article. And the editor should have been smart enough to see it and call BS.