I must say I've never understood the need to include women solely for "tits" value. It must be a holdover from the pre-internet days. I don't care what gender you are or how many trucks it looks like you've been hit by; I'm watching Mythbusters for completely non-sexual reasons.

Forgive my ignorance but... To what extend do (or could, with modification?) non-TCP protocols like UDP already address these differences? Also, I wouldn't really have a problem with privileging streaming services; but I have a big problem with privileging certain services of the same type over others. The law would have to be crafted very carefully.

Any place becomes a war zone when you march an army through it.

The Romans were onto something after all...

The first is a comma separating cumulative modifiers. E.g. a big, strong, intelligent mammal Five is not a modifier but a determiner, so I would not use a comma there myself. This author just seems to have extended the rule.

The second is just setting off a non-restrictive clause. E.g. the baker, whose cakes I've always enjoyed, came to see me

Because if there's one right that needs to be guaranteed and protected from tyranny... it's the "right" of the armed forces to be armed.

Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I thought it was a bit sketchy before what exactly the 2nd amendment meant, but specifying it with this addition really underscores the absurdity of the position.

It seems to me that Congress needs to act on this if our children are to have a republic. We've already heard that the Supreme Court, the highest institution of an entire branch of government, "lacks jurisdiction" to review the NSA's secret court decisions, which technically makes their secret court the highest in the land. If the NSA cannot be held accountable to Congress, there goes another branch. This looks like a coup.

It's not entirely obvious. Sure the script is completely different, but there's a chance it could be an alphabetical representation of a Mayan language.

I think it's more likely that a bag handler or TSA agent flat out stole the flutes, and the "agricultural product" excuse is just some run-around style bureaucratic ass-covering. One of our agents stole your things? Oh actually it's because of [MADE-UP REASON], and you need to contact [RANDOM OTHER AGENCY] to deal with it.

Well since the new codon requires the organism to interact with an artificial, human-supplied substance, this seems like a good way to keep manmade organisms in check. Sort of like the dinosaurs in jurassic park. Oh dear.

About, say, twenty years?

Hey, AC. I think you are right that nobody has really answered your question as you posed it, but they do THINK that they have. So let me try to couch one of their answers in your question... The fundamental difference between buying labor and buying cigarettes is that the money for the cigarettes just goes into the coffers of the company (and that of the sin tax goes to the government), but the money for the LABOR goes to a living person, who in turn PUTS THAT MONEY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY by spending it. So when minimum wage goes up, spending among consumers goes up, so demand for goods and services rises, and businesses can prosper thus hiring more people at higher wages. And just because we don't know exactly where the cutoff is between a GOOD rise in minimum wage versus a BAD one, that doesn't mean that a cutoff doesn't exist; our economic models are just too rudimentary to map it out exactly.

That's what they are arguing against you, but I say to them that this assumes too much. For instance, if you are making minimum wage--whatever it is--and you find yourself with some money to spare, if you have any sense at all you will SAVE it, so that you have a rainy day fund or use it as capital toward getting/finding a better job!!! The arguments also ignore the fact that not everybody who WANTS a job NEEDS one that pays a living wage, like high school students in the summer. Instead of learning how to participate in the economy, young, unskilled, casual workers like these are generally priced out of the market. But the dark side to the issue is that some will enter the marker NONETHELESS, thus competing with those who ACTUALLY need to make enough money to live on. Then there is black market labor. I had a friend in high school who worked construction, hauling bricks, among illegal immigrants and people on welfare. Illegal labor has no minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage increases the black market for labor, thus giving companies with high demands for unskilled labor further incentive either to hire people illegally, move to a country where it costs less to hire people, or go out of business.

tl;dr: having a minimum wage means having a black labor market, and raising the minimum wage hurts those it is meant to help.

I've been using Linux since I was in 6th grade: Mandrake 6.something, Suse 7.something, Slackware 10, Redhat 9, a bunch of smaller live-cd and media-centric distros, Ubuntu, and now Fedora 16. I've used KDE, Gnome 2, Blackbox, Fluxbox, Windowmaker, and flirted with FVWM and a couple others. I appreciate minimal aesthetic and functionality as much as any Linux nut, but this is why I like Gnome3.

No, it's not very customizable. But I find its setup intuitive and functional. No, it's not graphically minimal, but computers are far more powerful now than they were even five minutes ago... Graphic simplicity used to be very important, then it was preferable, but now--I feel--it's okay to have a little eye candy. (Take my words with a grain of salt, though. I have become a casual user over the years.)

Still, they should have kept up Gnome2 the way people knew and loved it.

Racism is: canceling a conference because of the race of the speakers.