I assumed it would be non zero but too low to make much difference.
See my above comment.
I assumed it would be non zero but too low to make much difference.
See my above comment.
ou wouldn't tell a man in that position "... successful entrepreneur hunk. You're most geeks dream man! You go man!"
Oh, really? Meet Bobak Ferdowsi, who generated endless amounts of fawning and creeper comments from women when he showed up on TV screens, and whose rise to stardom was almost entirely derived off him being accomplished...AND attractive. "Oh look, a guy geek who's a hunk!", everyone said, breathlessly. Can you imagine how all his other male colleagues, who contributed to the rover landing, feel about this? I imagine quite a few of them were pretty offended or hurt. Go google his name along with "girlfriend" or "wife" and see all the articles where the reporter says "Sorry, ladies, he's taken!"
In general, I was with you right up until you demonstrated complete ignorance of the male experience here while stating definitively what it is. Funny how if I, as a man, presumed to speak of what things are like for women, I'd be ridiculed as a mansplainer. Yet every day I hear women open their mouths and say the stupidest stuff about How It Is for men. Which is odd, since women's voices are by far the loudest in terms of gender issues. Anyway.
The stereotype for nerds/geeks is that they're socially clueless, fat, smelly, sweaty, badly dressed, and physically vulgar in appearance. When a man who is a geek/nerd/scientist gets covered by a journalist and is not the stereotype / is reasonably attractive and well-dressed, it's pretty goddamn common for the reporter to go out of their way to note it with a backhanded complement. Something along the lines of "not your typical (insert insult here)-looking nerd, either!" I've watched reporters zoom to a guy whose role in a project was minimal, but they're the most photogenic, so they're the one who gets interviewed. The same thing happens when there's a woman in the group; the reporter goes "OMG OMG WOMAN IN STEM" and practically lunges for them.
It's been unthinkable (or at least worthy for popular condemnation and mockery) for a reporter to say that a female scientist is "not homely, fellas! She's not just a rocket scientist, she's cute and looks great in a dress too!" Yet the same shit happens to men and nobody says a word about it, not even in, if especially not in, the most ivory-pillar circles of gender studies. It's also extremely common for the nerd/geek/scientist's clothing and physical appearance to be considered comment-worthy if it fits the stereotype; "Joe Shmoe looks the part of an astrophysicist; his shit isn't tucked in, his hair is astray, and his glasses are perched at an angle, covered in smudges." Awww, look, isn't it endearing? Meanwhile, how the hell does it make Joe Shmoe feel that his appearance and dress was apparently worthy of comment when he thought the interview was about his amazing research?
You're entitled to be wrong, people are wrong all the time, including me.
What you're not allowed to do without comment is chip in on something you've never even touched like you had something insightful to say.
Cue shift in pedo code words. "Anyone know where I can find a farm stand with underripe melons and bananas?" "Looking for a late model used car, less than 13 years old. Must have tiny headlights." "Need small pizza, smothered in sauce, no sausage."
Tom Lehrer said it best: "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd!"
Because you don't make ethanol from algae, you make biodiesel. The oil is easily separated from it, and trivially made into biodiesel compared to the difficulty of producing energy-positive ethanol. Also, ethanol is a shitty motor fuel. It's low on energy density and it destroys even synthetic seals over time, and it's horribly, nightmarishly hygroscopic.
Of course, in order to have all that biodiesel be useful, we'd need the EPA to issue sane diesel emissions guidelines so that we can have a plethora of small diesels as they do in Europe. Good luck!
If you merely invest in a tool without learning how to use it, your fear is realized.
Your brain is a tool you don't know how to use. Virtually no haircutters know how to sharpen their scissors or clippers, but they still manage to cut hair. My lady is a professional chef and she uses an el cheapo knife sharpener and you know what? It works fine. Two or three passes through it, wipe the blade on a towel, cut a tomato. Y'all are way overcomplicating this. You don't need a monomolecular edge to cut food, and if you had one on a steel blade, it would vanish the first time you made a cut and it touched the cutting board.
You are nearly there. There's not one secret, but three. The secrets to gourmet cooking are fat, salt, and alcohol. If you find yourself standing in the kitchen saying "how do I kick this up a notch", the answer is one of those three things, or perhaps some combination thereof.
Anyone overjoyed about just having been saved eighty bucks is welcome to make paypal contributions to the above email address
Then it truly is modernist cuisine. At least the book is aptly named.
if it's really about bullshit machinery that nobody would really use because it's a PITA, isn't it postmodernist cuisine? The only way it would be moreso is if it came from soviet russia, because you know.
I stated that one brand -- a very popular one -- was made the way I described. I also stated, very clearly, that I was aware other kinds are NOT made that way.
It is made by fermenting small whole fish in brine and drawing off the liquid, which is then bottled. I've got no problem with that.
No, it isn't. Unless you mean the Korean variety.
And I quote: It is made by fermenting small whole fish in brine and drawing off the liquid, which is then bottled. No, it isn't.
You made multiple statements in that comment, and in fact you did specifically say that he was wrong about the method of production before you went on to include weasel words which you are now citing, while ignoring the part of your comment to which the poster was specifically objecting. The line for crow forms to the left. You may also wish to consider the line to register for English 101.
If, that is, by "fermented" you mean literally poured into barrels and left to rot, outside in the sun, for 2 years.
Well, no. Most of it only sets for 30 days or so. That's more than enough time. It only takes a couple of days to make garum. I saw THAT on the teevee, so that THAT.
The fact is that the same bacteria used to make fish sauce work in your gut to break down the fish there, too.
THEN, the liquid is poured off, and bottled. (It is cooked before bottling. So it's not going to make you ill in that sense.)
You don't even cook garum. The salt and enzymes take care of safety.
Too Dumb; Didn't Read
Anything the industry does to try to hamper surveillance efforts, they can be told to stop doing by secret courts, and prohibited from even letting us know about it.
The only thing the industry can do to hamper surveillance efforts is to spill all the beans, all the time, about all the national security requests. But that would result in a bunch of rich people going to jail. Let us not forget the lesson of Qwest.
A worker is supposed to take pride in their work and demand proper compensation and conditions, not the other way around. You can refuse to work, you can't do shoddy work.
And that is where you have completely fucking lost the thread of this conversation, and your mind as well. They were not workers. They were slaves. If you're forced to work, you're a slave even if they give you some compensation.
TEPCO has been wrong or knowingly outright lied about EVERYTHING since this disaster. They are not only incompetent, but they are morally bankrupt as well. Every single estimate of the release so far has had to be upgraded because they were either telling bald-faced lies or deliberately misusing the equipment, like reporting the maximum the device would read as the value.
Discharging the weapons alone in the bathroom would just make some smoke/noise and injure the terrorist but would not bring the aircraft down. The worst that would happen would be the aircraft would make a quick landing but everyone would survive.
You take them into the washroom to prepare them.
None of the proposed weapons have the ability to take down a plane anyway. All the goodies are concealed. I was addressing only the issue of having time to prep.
A professional would have continued to file reports,
No true scotsman fallacy. You might as well say a professional would have quit immediately and got another job. But we live in the really real world where people have to bring home a paycheck in order to not be incarcerated, as it is illegal to be homeless in America.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?