I am very happy that they make a comeback. If they recover to a point that they become harvestable resorce, I may get to eat blue whale again.

"Whale meat again, don't know where, don't know when...."

Yes, I think the rule should be simple:
Anyone or anything that claims a right to privacy shall have it.

That's today's F1, with fuel flow and rpm restrictions. The F1 of yesteryear was very different, and there could be extreme differences. Some cars went much faster, but accellerated slower. Others had an emphasis on brakes or curve hugging. Or on completing a race with one pit stop less.
I find F1 today completely uninteresting, much like a Indy cars with lower top speed. There's next to no difference between cars, and few overtakings. It's like the emphasis is on making it so uneventful that you can buy hotdogs without losing anything.
Bring back the 1000+ hp F1 engines, wide wings and wide tires. Let the drivers push the envelope. Because right now it's as boring as Indy cars.
(And bring back the Killer B rally class too.)

Do you have an example of a matriarchal society where men do not overall prefer women younger than themselves? It only takes one counter-example to topple his claim, but you need to provide one.

"A" home server? Who would have just one?
Local DNS, DHCP and DCHPv6 servers need failover, and onsite online backups are done cross-server.
So I'd think any nerd would have at least two.

I also have two different wired networks - one that is used for clients to talk to the servers and the gateway, and one that's used for servers to talk between themselves. There's no reason for traffic between a client and a server or internet to get slowed down just because one server backs itself up to another.

And two different Wireless N networks - one 2.4 and one 5 GHz. That way, using one band won't slow down the other.

They already have been changed to glucose before they become fat, which means that the body quite obviously could process them. That they became fat is because there weren't any takers for the glucose.

Wow, I can't believe that someone missed the point so completely!
The point being that it is unlikely that the brain is stealing the glucose and thus stunting growth like the article supports, because when kids are fat, that means they have metabolized carbs->glucose->fat, and thus have had plenty of glucose. That fat kids' bones don't appear to shoot past normal kids in growth strongly suggest that there are other reasons why kids don't grow physically to adults in half the time.

I suggest that being smaller and having different proportions to adults triggers the "do not harm" and "protect" instinct in most adults, thus increasing the chance of reaching adulthood and bringing one's genes on.
There are probably other survival advantages, like having less mass and more flexible bones might be adventageous at the age one learns to climb trees and cliffs.
When reaching the age where one is going to procreate and bring up own children, the advantage is to have a more adult body, capable of hunting, foraging, carrying and protecting.

Get it now, or are you going to get sidetracked by a single word again?

No, it doesn't. You have the wrong idea of what "imply" means. It is not a synonym for "hint at" or "suggest" any more than "implication" is a synonym for "hint" or "suggestion". It is a near synonym to "mean".

That you have two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome implies that you are female. It does not merely hint at it.

When I used the word imply in the real world example of my GPP, it was to say exactly what I said. Not your uneducated guess at what it means.

That there is an inverse correlation between brain glucose use and body growth does not imply that the brain's use of glucose stymies the growth until later.
If that were the case, kids who are overfed carbohydrates would be smarter and taller, not fatter and dumber.

My guess is that slow growth is selected for because children who look like children enjoy special care and protection by adults. Growing to adult size by age 7 might be detrimental to survival.

If they knew of quality problems that might be a danger and failed to inform you in order to make a profit, yes, absolutely.

Grasping at straws, much?

It's not like Norway is being a third world country catching up on car ownership. For decades now, the Scandinavian countries have consistently been in the top ten for things like GNP/capita, expendable income and median income and technological penetration.
The cars are being replaced with electrics, in great part because of government incentives like no tolls or parking fees, and publicly funded charging stations, but also because of environmental consciousness.

And again, you bring in total sales figures, like if they said anything about penetration. They don't. We have a strong total sales because of two things - we (a) have over 300 million people, and (b) a lot of those cars we sell, we sell to other countries. Our domestic adoption rate is not high at all, and especially not for full-electric (non-hybrid) vehicles.

Don't bother answering, because you've ended up in my plonk file along with other closed minded people who live in the past. I'd ask what kind of electric vehicle you drive, but you don't.

Contrary to what many, especially Americans, think, you cannot win a war. The "winners" are simply the last ones standing, whether they have lost arms legs or heads.
We still lost the war, like every other participating country.

(And two? One can hardly say that USA "won" the great war. The American participation was minimal and not decisive in any way.)

Google does. Their new e-mail filter might reject statements like the above depending on the word frequencies in spam du jour, because it contains the phrase "pen is".

I wish I were only joking.

EU isn't a country.

Check some statistics - Norway at first place has 6.1% penetration, followed by five other European countries and Japan, while USA is down at 8th place, with an order of magnitude(!) less electric car penetration than Norway.

As usual, USA lags behind, but thinks it's at the forefront. Hell, people here still use personal cheques (which most of the world abandoned in the 1990s), companies use telefaxes, and most people can't even get high speed internet (with high speed being the definition from the 1990s with guaranteed 10 Mbps up and down). We live in the stone age compared to many other countries, but are too close minded to admit it.

Using the total figures is as uninteresting as saying that the Chinese have more sex than anyone else, because the total number of fucks is higher than any other country.

You have to look at the per capita figures, not the total.

And for car sales, subtract exports, because they don't increase the domestic adoption rate.