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.

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.

Precisely. If I had ink covering my wrist, I would definitely read the watch's promotional material to see what technology is being used in that sensor. And once I determined it was optical, I sure as hell wouldn't buy one without a test-drive. The same for any off-nominal physical condition--it's the responsibility of the individual to see if the equipment functions in the presence of their physical variation. If you were one of the people whose dental work causes them to hear radio signals, would you buy a Bluetooth headset without trying it?

What I *do* have is quite hairy arms, I'm concerned enough about the pulse sensor working that I'm not even thinking about one of these watches until they're common enough to try on without an appointment (that, and since it's Apple, version 2.0 will be 25% cheaper and have 25% more features).

But you can appeal it if new evidence comes to light.

Exactly. I'm a contractor at the NASA Johnson Space Center. One day in the 90's, I was walking across a parking lot that had just been graded flat in preparation for a new layer of asphalt. I found myself in a "field" of dozens of pull-tabs embedded in the pavement. It was easy and fun to imagine some Apollo-era astronaut gathering. The Right Stuff, indeed.

(of course, today, just bringing alcohol inside the gate will get you fired)

The same way we can't seem to function without carrying a mobile phone 100% of the time. I really wish I could leave mine behind more often and not be labelled as antisocial. I swear I'm the only person in my subdivision who isn't talking on the phone while walking my dog.