Maybe they could all play "the hamster dance" song as they go down the street? Or maybe loop something from "what the fox says".

"Da ding ding dinga ding" -- "oh, here comes another Tesla!"

Or fraudulently claim certain documents had been authenticated.

It wasn't 10 years ago -- therefor it wasn't correct. What you are describing happened in 2013. They "rolled" most of the PDDs together last year. They were all under the PDD spectrum before then.

It also wouldn't be correct now. Aspergers is on the "Autism Spectrum", but is STILL separate from Autism. To call Aspergers "Autism" is to provide a misdiagnosis.

Support for various disorders were based on DX. Still is, as far as I know. And the treatment/therapy for Autism is often quite different for other PDDs on the spectrum such as Aspergers.

My son was dx'd with autism about 10 years ago by Kaiser. I had him re-evaluated at my expense because his symptoms and the criteria made no sense to me. He was later dx'd with Aspergers.

I asked the Kaiser doc about it and my response was "Well, there's not a lot of financial help or school support available for Aspergers -- there is for Autism". Wonderful.

Horseless carriage should be an OPTION. Horse-drawn buggy should be an OPTION.

As long as there is an economic reason to have physical media, It will continue to be produced and you will continue to have that option.

Don't be surprised if one day DVDs or BR or whatever media is no longer produced because it's no longer profitable. Right now, *I* like owning a number of DVD/BR. I like the box. I like how they look in my shelf. I like the DVD extras. I like how I can take them to a friends house to watch without having any complicated issues like logging in to my own XYZ account (netflix, amazon, hulu, whatever). I like that I can sell them when I no longer want them and that ownership transfers. I am willing to PAY for those things in the form of a $20-$100+ dvd or special box deal. As time moves forward, I would guess that fewer and fewer of us will be willing to pay for that. They'd rather pay $3 or $4 bux a pop and rent it on google play or amazon or itunes. And that might make the best sense for them.

Re-read what I posted.

"I'm all for advances in science improving the QUALITY of life and allowing us to live as long as we naturally can -- but to live forever? "

Where do I say we aren't living past our "natural lifespan". You seem to read "average" in to my sentence though I never said "average".

Considering that it was how we moved big stuff in to space and current relations with Russia going south (with Russia being our only ticket to the ISS), we better get to those "potential future programs" pretty damn fast.

"Living longer, healthier lives without an arbitrary time limit is a worthwhile goal. If you don't agree, feel free to die of old age instead of accepting treatment, but don't condemn everyone else to early death and try to claim the high ground."

Perhaps you can try harder to read and comprehend what you read.

It was claimed that "death is wrong". I claim that at the very least it brings up ethic questions to try and eliminate it entirely and certainly not "wrong".

Then you claim I'm trying condemn everyone else to an "early grave" when I clearly state that I'm all for extending and improving the quality of life to allow us to live to whatever our natural max is (120, 130 or whatever) and claim Im trying to take the moral high ground?

I do not accept by default that it *IS* a worthwhile goal. Not without some serious thought. You clearly are staking claim to the 'moral high ground' by your statements. I'm saying "lets not be to hasty".

Why is this here? Because it's arguing about extending human life.

To say "death is wrong" is like saying "fly death is wrong" or "spider death is wrong". It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.

"And in spite of pride and erring reason spite, one truth stands clear -- what ever is, is right" (A. Pope -- An essay on man -- not sure if I have the quote exact, but it's pretty close).

I'm all for advances in science improving the QUALITY of life and allowing us to live as long as we naturally can -- but to live forever? Even beyond whatever is currently our max (maybe 120 or 130 years)? It poses ethical questions itself -- not the opposite that it's WRONG to not live forever.

Actually, I don't believe that we tend to teach them any of those things either.

"since probiotic yogurt does nothing, then you want have much of a case. IT's all dead before it gets to your intestine."

Are you lying or just ignorant? Check out the research on the effects of probiotic yogurt on IBD. Just because the culture may not survive to the intestines does not mean it "does nothing".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

See? I can "stalk" you, too. The difference is that I done lie and spout off in ignorance.

Stalker much?

One possible point is that you are a prat who still hasn't answered my previous question in another thread yet continue to follow behind me and make annoying comments that are usually either entirely untrue based on shear ignorance (see my previous question) or just deliberately obtuse (see this one).

But thank you for making me feel loved.

"The main problem with e-bikes is they don't fit the bicycle category; they're really underpowered motorcycles."

I have an e-bike that I would not classify as an "underpowered motorcycle". It's a power assist bike. The motor doesn't activate unless I pedal.

The bike will go zero mph if I don't move my legs. With "lazy" pedaling, maybe ~10 mph. I an also set how much "help" I get.

The advantage of a bike like this is that the battery can be smaller, last longer and keep the overall weight of the bike fairly low.

I USED to ride this daily to work (with power assist) so I didn't show up hot and sweaty. I would ride home with the power assist turned off. My responsibilities changed so I now use the bike more for leisure.

"I disagree strongly.

There are four good reasons to take a pay cut to switch jobs within a development/IT career when you're older"

Thats fine. Yes there are reasons. But are a list of very specific exceptions to the general "almost always yes, with a but" to which I responded. You just provided a list of "buts"

I'm sorry, but job stability and good benefits look pretty damn good the closer you your 40s-50s.

The "but" should include "how old are you"?

Are you in your late 40's or early 50's? The answer is almost always "hell no". Even mid at mid 30's you should think hard.