Monsanto should simply be held fully responsible for any negative financial impact this might have on the American wheat industry. They, of course, should be able to pursue the recovery of funds from any negligent license holders, but the ultimate responsibility is theirs.

To some degree, agile is sold as, "Implement this and you'll never have to really manage a software project again." Just follow the steps, we are told, and everything will just work itself out. When agile fails, we're told it is because the steps weren't properly implemented. Everything is put on the method and very little demanded of the ones in charge. That's a really prescription to fail; accountability is the first requirement for success.

In theory, since a movie is just a series of still frames, the same techniques could be used to modify individual frames as are used to "photoshop" a still image, (albeit, tediously). You might find the tools and tutorials at this site of some help in analyzing individual frames: http://fotoforensics.com/

You might also find some of the information at the associated Hacker Factor blog of use: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/categories/17-FotoForensics

Since radioactive materials have been actively released into the environment for well over half-a-century, current background levels may not be a good measure of the actual, natural background levels.

With this logic applied, beleaguered industries worldwide can gain instant relief! Just think, of it. For an example, when you fill the tank or change the oil of your car, you'll owe the manufacturer for your *new* vehicle!

Remind me again how Circuit Court judges are selected.

... using "The Manchurian Candidate" as the trigger. Preferably, the 1962 version of the film.

It was largely a cottage industry in the nation which instituted the Second Amendment, and evidence would suggest the founders of that nation were not overly concerned with governing the affairs of Europe. That had to wait until the Marshall Plan.

Upon reflection, I see where you have misinterpreted the tenor of my "plinking cans" comment. Plinking cans, or match shooting for another example, are commonly regarded as recreational pastimes not necessarily pursuant to the use of the firearm in other applications. It was in that capacity that I intended it, not as a general reference to target practice, as you appear to have taken it.

The first point was that the initial adoption of pistols was primarily by outlaws, while the cavalry examples you cite were later developments.

The rifle was, for example, developed for the hunting of game. It's use in a military capacity had to wait until the advent of the American Revolution.

So your defense is that any target practice validates a weapon as not intended to kill humans? If then, we use Sarin to kill some gophers, is it henceforth alright to use it on people?

The cavalry you mention were primarily marauders and highwaymen which can only loosely be called cavalry. Regardless, the purpose of the arm was the destruction of human life. You may wish to note that plinking cans developed somewhat later.

I apologize for my error in specifying the First Amendment; I meant to say Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Side arms are not generally considered pivotal to the maintenance of a militia, the stated focus of the amendment's intent. Pistols were first developed in in 16th Century France, their primary use was by highwaymen.

Perhaps it's worth noting that, when the Second Amendment was instituted, gunsmithing and the manufacture of firearms was a cottage industry. On the flip side, it's probably fair to say the founders were most interested in the protection of long arms, not handguns. The pistol was developed for the sole purpose of the destruction of human life; not so with long arms, though initial development mainly concentrated on that purpose. .