If you can't trust the other party, why are you having sex in the first place? Sex is all about trust. If trust is not assured and sex is desired nonetheless, condoms are a must, or you might be exchanging a lot more than a few gamete cells.

If anything, this might actually give them a plausible response to "why didn't you bring a condom?". Oh the sad irony if this actually ends up hurting women.

Whoever the hell moded this tripe Insightful needs to have their head examined, along with the author.

You mean the discredited program that produced working engines and test-fired them on vacuum stands, proving they are practical and work? You might also note another program that was terminated in 1972: Apollo. Oh my, what an abominable failure that one was...

And how else would you propose to move in space? Mr Newton might have something to say here.

If you think the difficulty in achieving orbit is just lifting something sufficiently high up, you're more dense than I thought... Here's an idea, first learn about something, then start lecturing about it.

Please note that all of the above modes of transportation have one thing in common: they only work on the Earth. Or when was the last time you last saw a car drive through outer space?

I agree: Lua is absolutely one of the best things to be teaching high school students. You can either sit entirely in the Lua language itself, or you can learn to extend the capabilities of the VM and interface with outside libraries and frameworks.

And now you don't have an audible trail: I can't be sure my ballot was counted correctly. The first comment above still holds.

Does the U.S. version of Netflix really use a library model, where they strive to keep content available indefinitely? Video streaming services here in Germany continually change the content they are offering, so it's more like a TV with very many channels and random access, and not really a replacement for a collection of your favorite movies and shows.

P.S. just to set everything 100% accurately, I forgot about one detail. Fuel can result in more greenhouse gas emissions due to the binding of atmospheric oxygen, so I need to correct myself. However, the number for airplanes is still way off. For cars it might just about work out (930kg of CO2 contains about 250kg of carbon, which is in the ballpark), but for airplanes it's still way off (by about a factor of 4x).

Apparently not a very good one. Google maps says that the optimal driving distance from SF to BOS is about 3000 miles, which, on a 30mpg car, results in 100 gallons of fuel burn. Gasoline is typically around 0.75kg/L, so that comes to 284kg of fuel. Unless your vehicle manages to break the laws of physics somehow, you're never going to emit 930 kg of just greenhouse gases per vehicle. Now the same trip using a plane is about 2700 miles (from a real flight plan). A typical Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 comes to about 0.03L/km/seat, and given that Jet-A is typically around 0.82kg/L, this comes to ~100kg per seat.
So it really comes down to occupancy. A nearly fully-booked plane wins over a single-occupancy car hands down easily. The break even point is at about 2-3 passengers per car, so a car can be more efficient, assuming you car pool. One thing frequently forgotten in these comparisons, though, is the cost of time. The flight is 6 hours. The drive is 4 days of non-stop driving. In any case, just wanted to let your know that the source you cited is quite off.

Also Brother MFC-8480DN, prints PDF fine from USB drives that originate from many different programs. Only print I ever had fail used Adobe DRM to protect one of the layers, had to print that from Windows, because the bits needed to remain secret before being reproduced on a piece of paper. (sigh)

I'm not going to bother touching on the ongoing debate of which sounds better or which format is generally better. I personally believe the difference of vinyl and other audio formats is the process involved with vinyl and the a lack of a better word the intimacy people have with it.

I always tell friends who ask about my collection that vinyl is to digital media what home cooked meals are to microwave dinners. Some people don't like cooking and choose easy and fact meals they can just eat so they are no longer hungry. While other people enjoy the process of cooking for hours to make a meal they are proud of and enjoy. Is the home cooked meal better? To the person who cooked it yes it most likely is because of their involvement.

These days with digital media you simply browse a site/app click a few buttons and the song or album is lost into your collection. It becomes background noise after listing to it a few times and has no real relevance to the person. With vinyl (specifically hard to find albums) a person can spend years searching for the album. They might go to stores weekly talking with employees and building friendships so they can get items held for them or called when a big collection just comes in, or spend hours walking around the city searching all the stores. Nearly all my records have stories like this.

There is also the process of playing the albums vs simply hitting shuffle on your computer. You have to search your collection deciding what you want to listen to, start up your equipment, maybe you have to clean the record before hand. You also have a tangible object you need to interact with. There is involvement.

So like I said; some people want quick and easy music that requires no involvement. Some of us do. I love the process and thinking about what I went though to get an album I'm listening to, or who I talked to when they suggested something or the show I picked the album up at. Personally I could care less if one or the other sounds better and I still personally listen to streaming music/mp3's when I simply want background noise, but when I want to listen to music I turn to my vinyl.

Whether the term is enforceable or not is debatable and almost certain to be rendered moot. Unlike US Republicans, UK Conservatives do actually believe in the rule of law and honest business practices (sort of). There isn't any party who believes that screwing the consumer is a constitutional right. There will be a bill passed.

A rather more direct question is whether the hotelier was entitled to collect the charge under the credit card agreement. And that is unambiguous, he isn't. A credit card merchant cannot use a charge card to recover a disputed charge. It does not matter what the purported contract term was or if it is enforceable. The credit card agreements are designed to prevent cardholders from dishonest merchants. So the consumer will get their refund and the hotelier will find themselves facing a 30 quid chargeback fee.

The only option for the hotelier to recover would be to take the matter to court. The most he could win is the hundred pounds, if he lost he would likely be out the legal costs which could be a couple of thousand. Small claims courts don't usually award costs but they might well do so in this case. Judges tend to detest bullies.

Its more than that, without regulation you end up with a lemon-law market.

Lots of times the difference between an honest product and a dishonest one only becomes apparent years later. If the product is safety equipment you only find out if the hard hat works when someone drops the brick on your head.

The libertarian theory that self interest will drive people to make honest products has turned out to be utterly false. In fact it turns out to be quite difficult for a company that intends to do the right thing to do so. I once had to get a guy fired after I found he had goosed his response rates for customer support calls by deliberately setting the phone tree up as a maze.

People do all sorts of idiotic short sighted stuff. This hotelier for example got his pants in a twist over a bad review and now he has probably sunk his business completely.

Rational choice is not an empirical fact of human behavior. It is a modelling assumption that tends to give good results in certain cases. But it does not hold for corporations because the interests of the corporation are not identical to those of the employees. All those banks who go belly up because the traders get big rewards for raking in profits and face no consequences for a loss. I don't gamble with my own money but if you want to give me $100,000 to gamble with I am happy to take it to Vegas, find a roulette wheel and let you take 100% of any losses and 90% of any gains.

... still use Sybase, and not some Johnny-come-lately like Oracle. Even for compliance stuff.

Your signature is profoundly disturbing. Citation, please?