...a utility that would go through my gazillion saved bookmarks from forever, and see if each still has something of value there.
I sometimes in an odd moment sift through the oldest, and easily 8/10 are dead links.
Animal rights activists release 000's of animals into the wild, regardless that none are actually adapted or can cope, quickly being killed by traffic or predators.
Rarely are they sensible about what are rather complicated moral issues. Humans are omnivores, and are natural meat eaters. If eating some 'higher' creature that is the result of "millions of years of evolution" is inherently cruel, isn't eating corn pretty much the same thing? Worse, because with corn not only are you eating the product of millions of years of evolution - you're eating their BABIES.
Furthermore, I don't understand the problem vegans have with EGGS. These are - to the chicken, when unfertilized - essentially WASTE, and incredibly nutritious.
Anyway, ask yourself this: if one mourns the millions of dead animals slain to satisfy the meat industry...how many pigs or cows would there ever have been, if we couldn't eat them? I'd wager 99%+ of them would never have existed, but for their tastiness.
Now this has made me hungry, brb burger.
Are the eggs viability all that different from "young egg" to "old egg"?
Isn't a huge factor simply the age of the mother?
Is planting a 'frozen young egg' in a relatively elderly 50 year old uterus really going to be that much more successful?
...whether Cold War-flavored (so very 1980s) or terrorist-flavored (so very 9/11), wouldn't these relatively straightforward precautions LIKEWISE buffer us against the effects of the sorts of solar activity that randomly seems to popup every 100 years or so?
It seems that as our society becomes more and more DEPENDENT on the interwebs, we'd want to invest a little to protect that.
(Then again, one might assume that because our entire economy runs on the roadways, we'd want to invest in them too...)
Yet the Republicans are too wedded to utter prohibition on taxation, and the Democrats are too busy taking the tax revenues we do get and pouring great gobs of cash onto various interest groups for either of them give a shit about the ACTUAL public weal.
Honestly, it's probably the opposite now.
As the game in the US has lost much of its elitist, exclusionary atmosphere and the ACLU has stormed the membership barricades, the white, old-money folks are no longer willing to pay ridiculous membership fees to belong to exclusive-clubs-that-are-no-longer-really-exclusive-in-any-way.
Congratulations PGA: you wanted to 'democratize' and 'universalize' golf.
Now you have a crapton of Happy Gilmores on the course, the people who used to play are no longer interested in your 'country clubs'.
It's a little old thing called supply and demand. Unfortunately for you, not all demand is equal. Is it better to have 200 shlubs whacking away with a $100 set of wal-mart clubs every weekend, or to have 20 millionaires who'll be interested in bringing their wealthy friends there, pay ridiculous green fees without batting an eye, and even donate $000's for the new water hazard near the 14th green to 'liven things up a little'?
You don't think there's a larger agenda here?
http://www.eutimes.net/2014/04...
White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of "confrontational" behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.
During the speech at at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch's homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of "sudden personality changes in their children at home."
"What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?â she asked. "For the most part, they're not related directly to plotting attacks. They're more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at homeâ"becoming confrontational."
...at least according to the summary, wasn't this a little histrionic?
"Without the tuned mass damper, LeMessurier calculated that a storm powerful enough to take out the building hit New York every 16 years." In other words, for every year Citicorp Center was standing, there was about a 1-in-16 chance that it would collapse."
No, the "lack of a tuned mass damper" was already presupposing that the POWER was out. The power doesn't go out in NYC all that often, and even if it did...Would it have been impossible to have, I dunno, 5 backup diesel generators tested in rotation every day to provide emergency power to the tuned mass damper in the event of a coincidental power outage AND storm?
...but I agree with the interpretation of the law.
IANAL, but if there is indeed an exemption section to the VA FOIA that states:
"Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher learningâ¦in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issuesâ¦where such data, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented."
*PERSONALLY* if the research was funded by public funds, I find such an exemption execrable, but it's the law and its authors that are at fault, nor Mann at all.
PS and tangential to the point of the OP: Slashdot, it's fucking 2014. Perhaps we could invest in modern posting tech that lets us paste things like biased quotes without getting crap codes like âoe ?
Or maybe convert all postings to monotype courier, so we're reminded that slashdot's still only a handsbreath above a BBS?
To the Left, yes.
My favorite question to Democrats is: Quick, tell me 5 things that George W Bush said that were commendable.
I can easily find 5 banal positive things that Obama, or Kerry, or Clinton said that I agree with, despite disagreeing with them politically. I don't find them evil, just ignorant or misprioritizing things, so it's simple to find basic human statements I agree with.
If you can't find 5 positive things to say about your opponent, you're a zealot, and any discussion you enter is a waste of time.
I'll use Thomas Sowell's example: People like to live by water, on a shore.
There is only X shoreline.
There are two ways to apportion that shoreline.
1) money: let people buy and sell it, or
2) you can divide it up, and give a piece to everyone; of course, this results in uselessly small pieces (and you have to forbid transfers or you end up with #1), complications with inheritance (is it heritable? How do you deal with death? Marriage?)
The problem with #1 is that as the resource is finite, the prices will become very, very high.
San Francisco is a wonderful location but is extraordinarily geographically constrained. Which do you want: a dictatorship that controls everything and allocates places to people according to what they think is fair today, or a "free" market where prices skyrocket to their value and prevent any but the super-wealthy from living there?
You can't have both, as I suspect that the inefficiencies of trying to chart a middle course make it the worst possible choice.
What's so hilarious is that to most of the commenters here, the Koch Brothers exemplify the absolute evil in the system whilst (and simultaneously) George Soros is merely 'doing the right thing' and 'helping people speak truth to power'.
One party is clearly the party of business, and business wields a lot of money. Hell, one whole tv network is dedicated to pushing their views.
The other party has draped themselves in the flag of victimhood, somehow managing to portray themselves as the oppressed when they a) are the majority, b) spent 57%(!) more in the last presidential election. They have a much smaller media network overtly supporting them, but 8-9/10 of general journalists sympathize and vote with this party.
In my view, BOTH parties are corrupt, nepotistic heads of the same beast. The idea that you support one side or the other is a Hobson's choice that keeps us running around the wheel, generating funds.
Next time someone from "the other party" pisses you off, think for a second if they weren't prompted to it by rabble rousers on their side SPECIFICALLY to make you angry. Ask any stage magician or pickpocket: controlling your attention is 90% of the trick.
And the likelihood of such a vote is ABOUT THE SAME as the odds of TX actually voting to join Mexico.
TX would go independent about 1000x more than join Mexico.
As Ike mentioned in his speech widely remembered for the line 'military-industrial complex':
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
The pernicious influence of this 'Federal technical complex' has led to an entire generation of scientists who believe that the only credible source of funding must be the federal government.
It is absolutely certain that there are some HUGE projects that need the resources of government, no doubt. But you know what? Not every bloody thing *needs to be researched*, nor does that research need taxpayer dollars.
I know, the idea that research needs to demonstrably benefit the taxpayer to be federally funded sounds like an idea that would come from (shudder) Republicans, but when we're overspending our budget by 30%+ every year to the tune of nearly $1 trillion, we can't afford everything we want, only what we clearly need.
Bennnet? Why not just post under your own name?
...you need to choose your relatives more carefully.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
