Really? You don't understand how or why explanations of a biological process belongs in a college level text? REALLY?

I don't understand where A SCIENTIFIC TOPIC discussing SCIENTIFIC FACT is politics.

Sure, human biology might be barely relevant to you, but in a discussion in an educated class (again, COLLEGE LEVEL TEXT, so I'm assuming some degree of actual education), it's extremely relevant. That'd be like someone taking a college level algebra course and never talking about permutations. It's only sensible to expect that to be discussed.

Uh, have you read the 12th Amendment? I quote the first relevant section, "...if such number [of electoral votes] be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..." by definition forcing it to mean 50.0000001% or greater (AKA a majority). So, if 3 candidates are in the running, one gets 10%, one gets 45% and the other gets 45%, no one wins. Following that scenario, "...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President..." means that, whoever has the majority most members in the OUTGOING House, will (almost undoubtedly) have the winner. Therefore, we would have to magically elect at least a reasonable percent of third parties to have even a REMOTE chance of a third party mattering. Frankly, the 12th is one of (if not) the worst amendments created, not only permitting the focusing of parties, but downright endorsing it.

I'd thank you to not put words into my mouth, nor attempt to extract thoughts from my mind. I have not voted for a party, ever, in my life. I have always voted for whomever I felt had the most reasoned decisions, the most education, and the most experience as to whatever posting they were applying for.

And people wonder why I feel we need to amend the Constitution to stop favoring the 2 party system...

Seriously? Ubuntu? If you were here as long ago as you imply, you'd be asking about Debian or Slackware.

So, a mini-windtrap? Kinda cool.

Uh...Did you mean NBC? Cause HBO didn't carry The West Wing...

Mod parent up. Even if it is legal in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and DC, it's federally illegal. I would be surprised to see the DEA crackdown on it, but legally, they could. Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.

Red Bull didn't sponsor him because they gave everybody who ever drank their product $10.

I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.

If the officer in question were reasonable, he would have used images that are in public record of her, so I can see the outrage to that portion as reasonable, but, frankly, I don't see how this is terribly surprising and front page news.

PS...since when is BuzzFeed considered to be even remotely a reputable news source?

Pretty sure you're in the wrong there bub. About the only things that come to mind are choreography and fashion designs. Otherwise, most things are copyrightable.

Introduce her to Max/MSP sometime. You two might find a new, shared passion.

But within the US they are not considered a bank, allowing PayPal to freeze funds of US citizens with no legal reason or ramifications. Additionally, point to make towards the OP, PayPal has owned Bill Me Later for a long time, and have been lending for years.

That was speculation where as this is fact.

This is /. I see them as so many M$ stories and suddenly it makes sense.

Actually, that's not quite right. From my understanding, Bukkit, a separate plugin that is dependent upon the Server, was created using GPL. As such, Bukkit itself should be GPL. But saying that the Server should be as well, that's like saying because I wrote a GPL piece of software for Windows, Windows must be GPL'd.

Scrutiny is not hard evidence. At best, it is circumstantial evidence. And it is not at all associated with the aforementioned situation.