Unless your cat is a Savannah cat (the largest, most wild cat legal to keep as a pet in most states) eagles have nothing to worry about. Your cat is food to an eagle.
Here's my idea: offer an insurance program that kicks OUT when you do something deliberately disregarding reasonable methods of protection.
1) smoke? Then no, your lung-cancer isn't covered.
2) don't believe in vaccines? Then no, your measles/mumps/rubella isn't covered.
3) Like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No prob, but no coverage for head-related injuries resulting from a motorcycle incident.
The sad fact is that in terms of humanity, it IS good that their offspring are afflicted, and hopefully sterilized. The fact that the parents are likely done reproducing means that they're functionally irrelevant.
Hmm, an IS person doesn't know anything about IS conditions, and someone who isn't denies the conditions exist, and won't do the most basic research?
Wow. Just, wow.
As I said, so some research. One would be surprised that someone with the username "can has do it yourself" wants to be spoon fed, but then, this is
Wikipedia is a good starting point. I credited you with intelligence to know that, and with the ability to follow links to cited articles and also query a bit on google.
Hermaphroditism is but a subset of intersex, fyi. All hermaphrodites and pseudo-hermaphrodites are intersexed, but not vice versa. It is possible to have ovaries and be XY, or to have testes and be XX, and likewise any combination with XXY, XXXY, XX/XY, and so on.
The future of Linux: on all devices. You should check out my toaster.
I believe what he was trying to say is that corporate America is unlikely to wean itself off of the Microsoft monopoly anytime soon, but Microsoft's stranglehold of the consumer market is vulnerable if gaming is taken away. Apple has dug deep into one important niche -- the non-gaming, high-end users -- and Steam on Linux has the potential to knock off the gaming niche. This is important because those two niches are where the high dollars are spent.
So while you're right, that the consumer market has the potential change quickly, I think he's correct in pointing out that corporate America will largely remain latched on to Microsoft for the foreseeable future. Two centuries is a bit of a hyperbole, but corporations are much slower to change up the technologies they depend on than individuals. An individual has to set up a new computer. A corporation has to set up thousands of new computers, write software, train people, etc. In the long term, I see specialized Linux systems becoming the standard in most corporations, but it's also probably the stranglehold Microsoft will keep within its grasp longer than any other.
> As to the consumption itself, as far as I can see, everything is clunkier on touch device. Everything.
Agreed. I know I'd rather hold a laptop up to my ear to make phone calls, or whip out a laptop on the subway or an airplane - and texting? Who wants to text on a device where they don't have to sit down at a table? Stupid touch devices - totally useless and far more clunky than a nice convenient, bulky laptop.
Look, it's unreasonable to simply say "men do this, women do this" and try to justify it with (usually) an elementary-school understanding of biochemistry.
to suggest that the hormonal change which RADICALLY alters otogeny (either developing testes and the subsequent hormonal consequences, or continuing on to developing ovaries) which then results in relatively consistent changes in brain structure, sexual attraction, body chemistry, etc. along one of two tracks DON'T have any impact on brain capabilities just because the idea of gender differences makes us uncomfortable with our 21st century politically-correct sensitivities is also unreasonable.
Females show a statistically superior skill in verbal fluency, across cultures.
Males show a similar skill advantage in spacial reasoning.
That's a simple fact. To suggest that other differences are only limited to trivial superficialities is a desperate rationalization, not a logical inference.
BTW the whole "women are paid less" thing has been debunked so many times that the only people repeating it are ardent feminists and the willfully ignorant.
...so someone doesn't accidentally buy a $335,000 600hp sports car without realizing IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS.
In other news: the government has banned running with scissors.
No. "low light" for photography is in a wedding where the human eye can see perfectly fine but even with an f/1.8 lens you are shooting at ISO 800 or higher if you want a reasonably fast shutter speed. "extremely low light" where photography is in a bar or a club and are shooting at ISO 3200 or better in effort to get reasonable shutter speeds. "Dark" starts when reading is uncomfortable but not impossible. The kind of photography discussed in the article is an amazing feat.
Interestingly enough, humans can only eat a small percentage of plants that are out there, most of which we've modified by selectively breeding them to create large seeds, fruit, or vegetation. Most grocery store vegetables share wild mustard as an ancestor. A few species of cereals (wheat, barley, corn) make up most of human's other plant-derived food. On the flip side, humans can eat practically any animal, even most insects.
So, objectively speaking, it's more natural for people to eat other animals. Until the advent of plant domestication about 10,000 years ago, most people wouldn't have been able to survive on a vegetarian diet and even if they could they'd spend most of their time collecting wild seeds as most plants we think of as food don't exist in nature. People have been omnivores as long as they've been around because 'beggars can't be choosers.' Our ancestors ate what was available that was compatible with their digestive systems.
If they had chose to respect 'animal rights' then civilization wouldn't exist. It was the use of animal-drawn plows that allowed for large-scale agriculture and thus civilization to come about. Animal domestication, or as the animal-rights people would say, 'animal enslavement,' was a necessary part of human progress. Not to mention the fact that without animal domestication cows, chickens, and dogs (to name a few) wouldn't exist as none of those animals ever existed in nature -- they're man-made species.
I kind of got off point but it remained on topic so I'll leave it. Point was, humans can eat many more animals than we can plants, so I'd modify your "homo sapiens eat everything" to "homo sapiens eat every animal, and a few plants we modified to be compatible with our digestive systems." If our digestive system could break down cellulose starvation would be a non-issue (as it is, starvation is just an economic issue, but that's another discussion altogether).
...what you're saying is that the tenure (I get a great salary, can never be fired unless I practically murder a kid, and have a giant professional union handling all my negotiations) bullshit is like winning the lottery, and you're unhappy that buying a bigger, more expensive ticket isn't an "automatic" win?
Wow, I think I'm tearing up here.