Nor did the study rule out the possibility that, once sufficiently stoned, one really has no desire to read--let alone learn--much of anything. IQ is like many things: use it or lose it.

Whenever I see something like this, I wonder: Is there a hidden agenda?

I wanna see some more data before changing my opinion. One study does not a fact make.

Funny! Thanks for sharing.

I wonder if the BBC realizes someone punked them?

On the other hand, I'm quite sure they will only want to know if you were speeding when you crashed.

Oh, I'm quite sure that insurance companies—and not just auto insurers—would absolutely love to know how fast you drive.

Right or wrong, insurers consider exceeding speed limits to be a significant risk factor, which is why they periodically audit their customers' driving records and adjust their actuarial ratings accordingly.

If you think they don't, I suggest you do more research.

Fortunately the FCC did allow the Sirius XM merger and prices did indeed drop (to $7 for a 50-channel plan).

I don't think the prices were lowered; from what I saw, they went up. I can find no mention of a $7, 50-channel plan on any Sirius-XM site. The closest they advertise is $10 for 50 channels of talk or 70 channels of music.

And, like the airlines, they added some mandatory fees to their offerings rather than raising their rates: If you want a plan that includes music, you have to pay the "Music Royalty Fee" (currently 9.8%) and an activation fee.

So no, I don't see the merger helping at all. Just like cable TV, satellite radio could benefit from from good, old-fashioned competition. Corporate management is paid to maximize return on equity, and will charge the highest prices the market will bear.

And there is nothing wrong with that--it's the way business works.

Why would it be too good to be true? We now have decades of research on HIV, large amounts of funding for HIV research, and a very real and widely accepted public need. At one time, people would have said that the current treatments for HIV infection sounded too good to be true as well.

Like I said (twice, in fact), "I hope I'm wrong."

Once again, as clearly as I can say it: HIV is a scourge on humanity and I hope this truly is a breakthrough that will cure/prevent HIV AIDS.

That being said, I've become skeptical from seeing too much overhyped research news; I won't start dancing for joy just yet.

But remember, "I hope I'm wrong."

"as scientists have failed to find a molecule that induces the immune system to produce enough potent antibodies"

scientists have failed to find proof that AIDS is actually caused by HIV

{{citation needed}}

Yeah? How about those who caught it from a blood transfusion? Or the people who made the mistake of sharing a syringe? Or those who were infected during plain, ol' heterosexual sex?

Sure, doing IV drugs is stupid, but it doesn't rise to a level deserving a death sentence.

Besides, if being stupid was a punishable by death, you wouldn't have been here to write what you did.

Ignorant moron.

I wanna see some peer-review output. I hope I'm wrong, but this sounds too good to be true, like cold fusion or the like.

Maybe, though, I'm just getting skeptical in my old age...

But still, I hope I'm wrong.

Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

{{Citation Needed}}

I don't believe you're correct. A person's SSN is also their TIN, so the IRS requires it. Also, HHS requires it for Medicare (and--I think but am not sure--Medicaid), FEMA requires it on disaster aid loan applications, and every employer is required to collect (and report) it for tax purposes, not just for FICA. Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?

I suspect there are others examples.

Please feel free, but do be careful--for your sake. You might take a moment to ask yourself why I would be so open with my identity. Unlike little trolls that revel in causing trouble, I sign my real name to my posts.

Say what you wish and people will do as they see fit. Please do not engage in illegal or tortuous behavior though; you may find the results of such action to be rather inconvenient, to say the least.

In other words, fly away, little moth, and try to annoy someone who hasn't wasted entirely too much time dealing with your type.

Ah, the sad spectacle of those who cannot read and write--much less punctuate--trying in vain to scream and insult their way through what might otherwise be civil and intelligent discourse.

The inanity of your behavior leaves us wishing--too late it seems--for better parental skills or for, at the very least, better medication.

I hope you someday find the social, intellectual, and language skills that have, 'till now, so completely eluded you.

I doubt the veracity of his claims to an education, if only based on his glaring inability (or unwillingness) to properly use the language. The ad hominem attacks are further evidence of inferior intellect.

Ignore the troll; they are loud and annoying but--in the end--irrelevant.

This is an ongoing problem when services are concentrated under one roof: it gives potential attackers a much richer target, with many more juicy pieces of low-hanging fruit in a convenient, easy-to-hit area.

Cloud and remote-hosting services are not bad; in many cases they are a wonderfully effective deployment tool. Customers must be careful, though, to ensure their provider implements good security practices and that their backup solution truly allows for service recovery after a disaster.

Unfortunately, this information is rarely presented on the service's website or in their ad brochure.

Yes, you can use "irregardless" in place of "regardless". You can also use "desalinization" and "preventative" instead of "desalination" and "preventive".

The problem is, you're trying to communicate--to make your message understood by as many readers as possible--and these less-than-preferred forms can cause your readers to pay more attention to the language than to the message.

Not to mention the lack of credibility many readers infer when they perceive an author can't even use the language properly.

Personally, I'd rather improve my chances of being understood.

$900 PC investment + $50 game purchase

... vs ...

$0 PC investment + $50 game purchase (?) + $10 / m OnLive subscription (?)

Yeah... the consumers are getting royally fucked here.

Gee, where can I get one of those $0 PCs? ;-)

So, what you're really saying is:

$50 game purchase

... vs ...

$50 game purchase (?) + $10/mo OnLive subscription (?)

Yeah, I figured as much...