The claim that they're granted with a similar algorithm to titles of nobility and are only useful to the rich or well connected due to the associated costs?

Men and women both contribute to creating people.

A mans contribution can be completed in a single night.

A womans contribution requires 9 months, during which time any distraction, disruption or stress can cause the "person creation" process to fail catastrophically.

This is the reason we systematically transform men into specialists instead of men. It is a waste of precious resources to turn a woman into a computer programmer when she's a lot more valuable as a mother.

It's not that women are incapable of being computer programmers. It's that they have more important duties, and when they neglect those duties, the entire human race suffers for it.

At the end of the day, the problem is people like you, who don't care about the fate of the human race as long as you get what you want out of life before you die, and, frankly, the solution is NOT diplomatic in nature.

TPB? No thanks.

eztv.it is where it's at. TPB is crap for searching and subscribing to specific shows and having a nice RSS feed filtered already for you.

I remember, back in the early 80s, some friends and I pooled our allowance, bought an Atari joystick, then tried to make an adapter for the 9-pin Apple IIe joystick connector- not realizing the reason the Apple joysticks were so damn expensive was because they were analog.

Not for my last 6 computers have I seen a 9 pin serial port.

The world's biggest Lego Land. Do they sing "Everything is Awesome!" while they work?

Very true. Multiculturalism and pluralism, like urban living, requires liberty and individualism.

The way I usually put it is "limited but strong"./ Limited in topics they can intervene on, strong enough to defend their competency.

Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses, and 2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.

So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.

People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.

Please follow at a safe distance, and go back to drivers training.

Easy solution, STOP letting for profit companies run these things. If a community wants red light cameras, they can buy them, install them, and manage them all under heavy citizen oversight.

Starch is broken down into maltose and glucose, but starch is not a sugar.

Starch is not a sugar, but starch contains sugar, in the sense that it will be rapidly converted into sugar, so there is an equivalency between consuming starch and consuming some sugar.

I wasn't about to suggest that people can't survive eating only proteins+fatty acids; however, it's likely to not be at all pleasant.

I believe you are forgetting who the customers of Google are. Hint, they're not you. The people who give money to Google are their customers - the advertisers.

Actually, both the free users of the search service AND the paid buyers of the advertising service are both customers of Google.

Just because you are providing the service for free, does not mean the buyer is not your customer.

Google is providing you a service if you use their search tool; it is the reason to visit their website and enter your search queries.

There is a related service being sold to various companies that choose to advertise.

But this doesn't exclude users of the other service from being a customer.

Just like if you buy a magazine, you are still a customer, even though there is another company paying to list ads in the magazine you read.

You are still a customer, even if your magazine is provided on a complimentary or promotional basis free of charge.

It's already socialism, because the big Telcos and cable providers have a government-protected monopoly.

I like the "socialism" where the cities build some public infrastructure a little better. As long as they aren't going to start attempting to regulate content.