I think you might want to revisit your anatomy class.

It isn't quite as easy as you might indicate.

I'm 40 and eat a better balanced diet than when I was 20. I exercise, but weight has gradually increased over time. I was at the bottom end of normal for what BMI charts say I should have been @ age 20. I am now about 15 lbs into the "overweight". My doc says I am fine because I have more muscle, but he wants me to hold the line.

I made some changes to exercise, working out 5 times a week in the morning and cutting out all soft drinks and after dinner snacking. I dropped 5 lbs in two weeks. i was hydrating a lot so it wasn't water that caused the drop.

After two weeks, same diet same exercise I dropped 5 more pounds in two weeks. I was feeling great. I was hoping for another 10. But guess what? Two months later, same diet same exercise I didn't drop a single pound. I am not sure how to explain it. It is like my body reached a certain point and compensated for the caloric drop by going into a lower metabolism rate.

When I was 20 I couldn't gain weight no matter what. Now, I know that 160# is a place that my body just doesn't want to drop below. I understand that I could increase exercise more or cut out even more food... but is it worth it?

I am convinced that BMI might be a guideline, but it isn't gospel. I can still run a mile at a good clip and keep up with the kids. What am I gaining by dropping into a somewhat arbitrary scale if I am healthy already?

Ah, so when she reports Martin saying: 'That N-word is still following me now,'"

That actually means Martin was lying to her since she didn't actually see Zimmerman following him. He was totally working her in order to cover his plot to sneak up on Martin and beat him to a pulp. How foolish of me to not to see that.

> SIPRNet

Not so useful for things like talking to undercover agents in the field. Yes, the government does have some dedicated infrastructure that serves very specific purposes, but it doesn't have the flexibility to cover all areas which is where Silent Circle seems to have found its niche.

There is no 100% guarantee when you are faced with billion dollar budgets, what I am saying is that Silent Circle has thought things through and are taking one reasonable approach and being closed source does not negate that.

Your TL;DR is as long as his post which is nothing more than a bald-faced assertion. It isn't anywhere as simple as that - every part of that risk that closed source has is the same this scenario. They NSL the company and force it to put a non-obvious weakness into their code as part of a much larger refresh and nobody even notices.

Yes, they absolutely do buy binaries without source. I know someone with personal experience of such a program buying custom binary libraries from RSA - RSA didn't let anyone near the source and she was in the position to see the source herself if RSA had.

Got it, the only part of her testimony that counts is the part that can exonerates Zimmerman, any other parts are just her being biased against Zimmerman - but not so biased as to just leave out the stuff that exonerate him. We are so lucky that she was honest enough to only lie a little bit.

The very next line of her testimony suggests otherwise, just read that link:

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."

"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

Thanks for doing this by the way, you guys are making me actually double-check my impressions and you are the ones proving to me that you are wrong.

who the hell rated your diarhea of the mouth Insightful??

Quoted FTMFT, and bolded for emphasis.

Still better than looking at Meg Ryan.

probably not, avgas is leaded.

they are naturally existing because they are by definition necessary and required to be a free man.
when they are lacking or absent or taken away you are no longer free.
that is why they are natural.

And the bill of rights is not a list of the ONLY rights we have. rememeber, the founders went back and forth over even having it.

Some worried that people would do as you are, and think its a list of hte only rights we have and that they are granted by the governement, not inehrent, and in so doing you negate the entire concept of government as an abstract of the people and turn it into a seperate entity from the people. the other side.

other worried that without some minimum set of rights spelled out in concrete it would be far too easy to violate what people at that time considered natural and inalienable rights, to take them away, change them, interpret them unjustly, etc.

the bill of rights as it came to be, and including the 9th and 10th amendemtns, was a compromise: it spells out some specific rights, sets them in stone, but at the same time notes that it is not an exhaustive or complete list of ALL the rights of a free man.

(and somehow your uniformed and ignorant diatribe turned into an attack on religion, as if the USC is a religious document...what's up with that?)

mod up.
in other words, in layman's terms, it should be read as "because a standing army is a needful evil for the nation to protect itself from outside threats, the people shall have the right to defense from that same standing standing army should it become necessary (again)."

they did get sued. and people still do it (sue) too, though the courts have held that there's basically a threshold value above which its essentially an airborne highway and a public commodity.

but below that value though, and especially if its close enough to cause problems to the land owner (such as an ultralight flying right above a chicken coup, or scattering a cattle herd), there can be legal repercussions.