aaaag arg argh im dead arg

Having a family is a choice and in this world, a fucking stupid one.

This protein is changed so little across the entire spectrum of eukaryotic cells that brewer's yeast can have their CDK replaced with the human version with no ill effect. Something that's proliferated for so long with so little change indicates that very small changes make the organism unviable. Tampering with the expression of this protein seems like an amazingly bad idea.

Much like how Tumblr was for Porn, Twitter's only real use case is dunking on blue checkmarks. RIP.

âoeEmpirically, basically, if a program is not free software, it probably has one of these malicious functionalities.â

Yeah citation needed there buddy.

I think the question Redbox is going for here is does First Sale Doctrine apply. Disney can say whatever they want on the box, but if the court says it falls under the First Sale Doctrine then it doesn't matter what Disney thinks.

Richard Stallman is that you?

Umm...

http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?id=310152560&airlineCode=AS&flightNumber=184&utm_source=49e3481552e7c4c9:-56368adc:12fe6648fb1:-1093&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=weblet

The second amendment recognizes that an armed population is harder to dominate by a central authority. This is as true today as it was then, and just as important. The right to bear arms is not for the purposes of hunting or other recreational activities. It is a check against tyranny. History has shown power to be a corrupting force, so preventing the concentration of power should be the goal of any civilization interested in longevity.

Ending the private ownership of weapons should be considered carefully. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to gain. The loss of this particular freedom would make it considerably easier to lose the rest of them. What safety is worth that cost?

Isn't Android also? As is WebOS (HP Touchpad). I think Microsoft makes the only tablet OS that isn't *nix based.

As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?

Individual behavior that has a societal cost should be fair game for targeted taxes. In many cases I think that allowing someone the freedom to engage in the costly behavior while asking them to compensate society for the privilege is preferable to an outright ban on the behavior.

Not in South Carolina, thanks to our stupid legislature.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/19/114429/sc-house-approves-amazon-tax-break.html

As if you don't have enough to do, can I get one?

rhodenr (gmail)