The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.

  That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.

That link says nothing whatsoever about rules for government employee e-mail.

That's a link to rules about ISPs archiving e-mail that is the subject of a subpoena.

The link you give says nothing of the sort. The link states that a government may require an ISP to archive e-mail subject to a subpoena.

That has precisely nothing to do with State Department employees, nor does it say anything whatsoever about what e-mail addresses they use.

That is a great example of "ABCs"-- Argument By Changing the subject.

I've never quite understood: why would anybody want to get out of jury duty?

I've often suggested that, but this is the first time I've heard anybody else suggest it.

Yes: vote, but the candidates on the slate should be randomly selected from the population

We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.

I'm sorry, but I agree with that. If you on the UK want us to dam up our rivers and build roads out to geothermal areas and tap into our resources, and raise our local power prices in the process, all for the benefit of the UK, our government better damn well profit as much as possible from it and reduce our taxes / improve our services in exchange for that.

Unfortunately, xB and xD do not agree.

Readily replaceable intakes?

Seriously, fuck the fish.

You could find fans for a plan like that...

Better negotiate the contract during a Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn / Framsóknarflokkurinn (conservative) government. Samfylkingin would approve it under the condition that the Icelandic government's share of the sales are so high that you would barely save any money on the imported power, and Vinstri Grænir would outright reject it no matter what you offered. But Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn and Framsóknarflokkurinn would let you dam up whatever rivers you want and take gigawatts of power in exchange for a handful of shiny trinkets and a couple magic beans.

The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.

Exactly. And tools and organization are the two most useful skills... for efficiently killing things.

Paying somebody else to do it turns out to be a very efficient strategy for killing.

I totally didn't know that! That's awesome!

Here's one I found with four components: http://solomonsmusic.net/FM_Cr...

I am curious how that tiny antenna can produce enough energy to drive even a crystal earpiece. Most crystal radios need huge antennae, don't they? And from the writeup it looks like the FM decoding more or less happens by accident as a side effect of signal interference.

If this really works, I reckon it should be possible to build a miniaturised FM crystal set into a pair of headphones. I wonder if you could do stereo?

Saddam would have eventually fallen apart, or one of his erratic sons would have. And then you would have potentially worse scenarios. You might even have had a full-on Iranian invasion to support the Shiite majority, causing a union of those two countries. Now that would be worse than ISIS.

Even if Saddam didn't end up out of power, he may have been holding things together, but even brutal dictators like him can't do that forever. Something was going to give.

There is no outcome in the Middle East that is going to go well. Even if the West packed up and left, they'd just start killing each other until the strongest one won. And I'm not sure anyone would like that scenario. Particularly if they decided to start by putting the Israelis under enough pressure that they go "Never again" on the Arabs and start nuking people.

The current start of the ME is bad, but it is nowhere near as bad as it could get.