They DO say that though--they very specifically say that the other species' DNA they mixed in to fill out the damaged dino DNA makes them look very different from the original species. It's as close to a major plot point as you can get--seeing as the whole premise is "super-hybrid runs amok."

You have to be rather dense to think a civil trial is a prosecution, though.

I think he means Steven Tyler's daughter. It's an easy enough mistake.

In the old days we just called those "ancient Roman ruins.'

He must be new here.

He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!

What in the sam hell are you talking about? (genuine question)

Congrats. You're Bear Grylls and NEWSFLASH: this conversation is not about you and your outlier behavior. They're talking about the majority of SUV owners who do not use them like that.

Speaking of outliers, the NSA has almost certainly flagged you as a potential Kazinsky-type terrorist.

Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you practice at it?

They pay because the content has value--NONE OF WHICH IS ADDED BY ELSEVIER.

Elsevier engages in rent-seeking by locking up the value and then adding nothing to it.

This isn't complicated. There's a reason all of Elsevier's customers hate them. It's the same reason Comcast's customers hate them too--Comcast DOESN'T ADD VALUE to the content they deliver, which they also do not produce. In fact, they substantially reduce the value of the content they deliver with the restrictions they place on it.

Elsevier is the science-publishing equivalent of Comcast. They are middle men who use a legally enforced monopoly to extract money from both producers of research and users of it while giving both sides nothing of value.

And the award for most ignorant post in the thread goes to......

Elsevier IS an aggregator that leaches content and doesn't do much--they don't produce ANYTHING. They've "acquired" copy rights on other people's research data by paying researchers NOTHING except the "prestige" of peer review (which they also don't do or pay for--they get the same researchers to do it for them for free.

They are the epitome of a leech. And the research community HATES them, but can't avoid them for a variety of institutional reasons (see also: publish or perish).

You have to realize that your parent poster graduated from a US high school and so lacks basic statistic literacy--he doesn't know what sampling bias is.

Which is EXACTLY what happened in Mexico City when they tried this sort of thing. It wound up making the problem worse.

Bureaucrats need to learn that you cannot force people to change their habits. They will work around any restrictions and then resent you for it. You have to change the environment that makes gas-burning cars attractive--improve public transit, subsidize electric (or raise petrol taxes, either way), mixed-zoning so people don't have to go as far for daily needs, etc.

You must be new to this world.

Yes, it's full of idiots. Though that is unrelated to the discussion at hand.

I love posts like this about language where someone thinks they're being "more correct" and in reality they just have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Next he'll be telling us that splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions are modern corruptions.

BTW your sarcasm detector is broken.