Then stop putting it in your mouth. You honestly need the government to ban something to stop you from doing this?
Link to Original Source
This is for increasing the level of fear in citizens in order to make privacy invasion more acceptable.
And since it will be the police getting the reports, how do you figure it will increase the level of fear in citizens?
They'll have less resources to assign to the 90% of the time they have given to domestic disputes and even less to the chuckleheads who are cutting you off, talking on their phones, while drunk and snorting coke, while driving.
Every new law should be bound to carry funding to enforce it.
911 is for emergencies. They are looking for tips.
Here is tip, comrade, everyone is a terrorist, but me!
Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.
What happens when admins get confused and pour the contents of their beverage containers into their servers?
We apologize for the confusion in the Critical Patch Updates. The individuals responsible have been sacked. To avoid further confusion, all CPUs will be processed through CUPS, the Critical Update Patch Server.
And now the goddamn printer doesn't work.
Never underestimate the power of marketing, especially the guilt-based marketing endemic to "green" foods. Someone will start selling insects as food marketing it as good for the environment, an alternative to factory-farmed meat, having a low carbon footprint, or whatever, and environmentally-conscious types will line up to buy them in droves. Some vegetarians will eat animals like fish, one argument being that simpler life forms like fish don't experience pain and suffering like cows and pigs do, so there's probably that market, too.
You're not going to see bugburgers at McDonald's any time soon, but this kind of stuff will be hitting the organic/whole/alternatives foods markets within a few years, I'm sure.
Insecticides, like nearly all poisons, are not fatal at sufficiently low dosages. Poisons are frequently rating with a system called "LD50" which tells you what dosage is lethal for 50% of test subjects exposed to it, e.g., the the LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats, 3 mg/kg for mice, and 30-60 mg/kg for human beings.
And a lot if insecticides will bioaccumulate in human beings (being fat-soluble, rather than water-, they build up in human fat tissues), so if a person eats enough of the insecticide, over time they may end up carrying a harmful or fatal dose of it.
Do those efficiency numbers take everything into account, or is that just the efficiency of the fuel input to energy output?
That is, I'd rather have a 2%-efficient power source that I could just plant in my back yard and forget about, than a 57%-efficient one that I'm constantly buying fuel for, periodically maintaining, and so on. Maybe it'll take half an acre of these "power plants" to give you the same amount of energy as one engine---but if that's half an acre of trees that grow on their own, unassisted, just like natural plants, isn't it more efficient on the whole than a mechanical engine?
No, that information would be regulated by the ATF.
And the law you reference violates the First Amendment, so this has everything to do with it.
Here are some mirrors:
"Requests" to remove these files will be heartily laughed at.
Here are a few mirrors to wreck the State Department's day:
Score 5; insightful?
All the GRBs we see are pointed right at us. They're highly directional; any GRBs that aren't pointed right at us we can't even detect.
The article basically says, when people drive in a completely unnatural manner---accelerating slowly and five miles under the speed limit---they get x miles per gallon. You stated that when you do the same thing, you get the same x miles per gallon. Wow, really?
No one is claiming the EPA is publishing false results. They're claiming the EPA sets unrealistic test criteria to produce their results, and all you did was confirm this.