Well I definitely give you points for being so tenacious in your attempt to pretend you still understand the conversation.

Another poster says that people are wrong to point out Obama's failures, because look at all of the things HE accomplished. Except, HE didn't do those things. He's not responsible for them. The Bin Laden take-down had essentially zero to do with him or any policy on his part, other than, "Yeah, keep doing what you started doing under Bush, until we get that guy." I'm pointing out that the person trying to fish around for some way to show Obama as a success, is attributing to him personally things for which he is not responsible. But you keep attacking that straw man, if it makes you feel better. Nobody is fooled, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.

...But turned away because not only was the machine expensive, but the hack was another $100. I highly recommend the Litter Robot (~$370). I've had one for a few years, and it works off of standard kitchen trash bags. I have two cats and I tend to it once every 7-10 days- I refill the litter and swap out the bags, and maybe do a thorough cleaning twice a year. No BS consumables.
Another model, Litter Maid (~$120), uses custom plastic trays. It's cheaper, but it doesn't work as well as the Litter Robot. After a few months you'll find yourself tending to it every other day. The cost of the plastic trays added up over the course of a year, but it's a non-DRM receptacle, so you can hack a cheaper 'solution' at home with a small amount of craftiness. If you do go with Litter Maid, go for the cheaper one- it actually works better than the 'Elite' model.
But really, go for the Litter Robot. I've had mine for two or three years and I love it.

I have seven children. We almost never had to let a child cry themselves to sleep, but I do suspect that may have to do with our kids' individual wiring and that crying to sleep might be the best solution in other situations. Most of our infant sleep problems were resolved when we realized our kids were much hungrier than experts predicted and started feeding them a lot more! Giving the baby another bottle turned out to be the number one way to get our babies to fall asleep with less fuss. When they get a little older (around 3-4 years) there are occasional times when a temper tantrum goes right into sleep.

I applaud any attempt to bring neuroscience and other scientific insights to bear on childrearing, but I question the idea that somebody who is an expert in one of these sub-issues would also be an expert in the others. Sounds like we are committing the logical fallacy of assuming that because one person is an expert in one field they are an expert in all. Maybe these are all related, but it just seems to me that neuroscience is complex enough that an answer to one of these questions doesn't have a lot of bearing on the answer to others.

I'm a father of seven, and I do a lot of work with my kids that could be called timeout, although I don't know if it fits anyone else's idea of what timeouts are. I make my children follow the same rule I was given for myself from a clinical psychologist: when you are angry or upset, don't say or do anything until you relax, because everything you are thinking of saying or doing is a bad idea. Over time you build up the habit of relaxing in the face of frustration, and when you do your brain stops putting so much energy into angry outbursts and starts putting it into actually solving your problem. Also you are a lot less likely to whack somebody that you want to be friends with for the rest of your life. I have a hard time believing that neuroscience would yield any results that say this is a bad idea for child rearing, but maybe they mean something different by "timeout."

It's too bad the creator had to ruin it by opening his mouth. Any 'Art' that makes it's statement with a bunch of words next to it generally isn't art. It's glued together junk that's not aesthetically appealing. This guy actually made something neat and arguably pretty, then made sure we all knew his talents started with, and ended with, this sort of work.

Silk Road did a spinoff where guns were being sold as the primary goods (the Armory) and they closed it because it wasn't profitable enough.

You're probably unaware that the GP specifically used 'HSBC' because they were caught laundering trillions of dollars of drug money and nobody was indicted.

He probably isn't unaware of that. He may well have actually read the indictment itself or a detailed summary of it, which made clear that the US case was very weak to the point of hardly working at all. In particular, not only did they fail to clearly establish that drug money was really moving (their case was "there is so much cash, some of it must be from cartels") but in particular they failed to show intent by HSBC execs to help drug cartels. Actually their case boiled down to HSBC didn't try hard enough, they weren't suspicious enough, etc. (I'm ignoring the Iranian transactions here which gets into issues of international jurisdiction, as you only brought up drugs).

The reason you think the are guilty is twofold. Firstly US anti money laundering laws are unbelievably extreme. The PATRIOT Act removed the need to have intent to be found guilty of money laundering. Bankers can now be found guilty of AML violations even if they genuinely tried hard and had no intent to break the law. Hence the accusations from the DoJ that were of the form "HSBC should have designated Mexico as high risk", etc. Secondly as part of the plea agreement HSBC had to act guilty and accept whatever the DoJ said about them. So you only heard one side of the story, the prosecutions side (except there was no court case). No surprises that you think the whole thing is cut and dried.

It's no crime to be ignorant of such things, but just try not to hold any policy positions on the subject.

Given that there was never any court case and HSBC was never able to defend themselves, pretty much everyone is ignorant in this case because we never heard the full story. But I'm pretty sure if DoJ had emails from HSBC execs that looked like the ones from BitInstant there would indeed have been prosecutions.

Accountants look at the operating costs of a retail store as part and parcel of that store's profitability. Locks on doors, anti-theft devices on displays - those security systems and the people who maintain and support them are costs that impact the profitability of the store. Nobody running a real business pretends that the costs of operating that retail store aren't part of that store's profitability picture. Multi-store overhead (like, say, a loss prevention specialist who spends time at all of the stores) is still part of that store's P&L - her salary is charged to multiple accounts, so that each store's bottom line feels that cost.

In other words, you don't have anything germane to say on the subject, just snark that's disconnected from reality. That's exactly my point.

As I asked another poster: is a company's retail store a profit center? Are the locks on the front door part of that profit center?

So inside a retail store are thousands and thousands of tiny little cost centers? Does that mean that the retail store is also thousands and thousands of tiny little profit centers?

Or would a rational person perhaps look at the store as a profit center because it makes money, despite having overhead costs like ... the screws that hold the front door to its hinges? Or is each of those screws a cost center, in your view?

How about the display cases that hold the jewelry in the store?

How about the cash registers?

How about the front door?

Is every last bit of overhead inside a profit center a tiny, microscopic cost center?

So, a company's money-making, walk-up retail storefront isn't a profit center?

So, all VPNs are "the internet?"

It wasn't "out there." It was "in there." They had the compromised credentials for a top-level system admin, and spent months on the internal network collecting goodies before laying waste to the system.