I agree with TWX in the idea that the death penalty should be maintained, but only in cases where rehabilitation efforts fail.

Deterrence and decrease of cost don't matter in such a case - when it is clear that a person CANNOT rejoin society AT ALL (as seems likely with Breivik, Norway treats criminals as people in need of help as a general rule), the death penalty makes sense. Humans are still animals; we put down rabid dogs* and other animals that would be dangerous in society after much less consideration and effort (although most would agree that humans deserve more consideration).

As for getting the wrong person, yeah - this needs to be reserved for cases where attribution is crystal clear, and there should be a system specifically vetting proposed cases (such as Breivik's). In Breivik's case, attribution IS crystal clear - no evidence points towards anyone else, and Breivik has actually promoted his murders in a Manson-esque style. However (seeing as how he has been kept in solitary and constantly subjected to a US-style prison experience), I'd argue that he would not yet qualify for the death penalty, because of the lack of effort made by Norway towards rehabilitation (so far as I know).

*After the discovery of the Milwaukee Protocol for humans with rabies, experimentation with rabid animals could yield substantial medical benefits for humanity; we maybe should rethink this in particular.

No, that's just the argument against the stealth technologies being used - the technology that allowed the Serbs to detect and track the F-117 was effectively available a decade and a half ago, and was apparently a modification of a technology introduced in the '70's, so basically everyone has details on the basics now and can probably do exactly what the Serbs did. The given RCS of that plane, by the way, was 0.003 square meters.

Other parts of the argument include data that show the new jet has slower, slower acceleration to max speed, and is less maneuverable than the planes it is replacing; the only point at which it seems to beat any of those planes, looking at the tables, is that it can carry about 2500 lbs more payload than its Navy equivalents.

As for VTOL capability, only the B-model has that capacity, as mentioned by other responses; however, as mentioned in the Medium article (found in the cited Slashdot article), that ability is responsible for the lesser flying capacities of the remaining chassis, so the lessened flying range then DOES ensure that the new jet requires forward bases, except for the Marines, who wanted VTOL so they could dogfight when not supported by other military branches (see Medium article, again).

Finally: the review cites 2 other studies not authored by French and run by organizations independent of French, the RAND study mentioned in the Medium review and a Pentagon study which showed the F-35 getting badly outdone by an F-16. This review is more of a summary or abstract of key points; and it references documents which you can read to see how and why French came up with those points. So, yes, the defensetech article may be a little shallow; but to call it slanted when it's calling attention to the (substantial) studies of two defense think-tanks and the Pentagon, all of which call the F-35 a steaming pile *and* use different methodologies (Rand: simulations, French: comparative, Pentagon: test pilot analysis) is the sort of reasoning that calls for creationists to get equal time in a science classroom - we shouldn't have to go to Lockheed PR to see why three massive studies like this are wrong.

Indeed a quick google turns up a longer article (here: http://www.defenseindustrydail...) that actually says some nice things about the F-35, although those are almost entirely sourced by an article from Lockheed, and those that aren't are based on the fact that the old platforms are basically old, and have old parts (older electronics, older integrated weapons systems, &c.). However, that was never the point of the main article being reviewed - the point of that article was that Yet Another Study done by someone other than Lockheed is calling the F-35 dead on arrival.

Not Kolob.

Each Kolob-day is as 1000 years of ours, (at least, wikipedia claims that is the description of the Book of Abraham), so a point on its (rotational) equator travels 1000 light-years at most per Kolob-day; that's 9.5e15 km, so the diameter of Kolob is restricted to 3.0e15 km at most, and 1.8 billion light-years is equivalent to 1.7e22 km; so the Cold Spot is ~ 5.7 million times larger than Kolob is allowed to be by the speed of light.

Nothing in the Book of Abraham seems to say that it can violate that rule, though it does say Kolob is included in and governs those things of the same class as earth, so it *should* obey the same rules as Earth, such as speed of light, though I suppose an argument could be made that it chooses not to.

I might recommend a copy of Carl Sagan's Sci-Fi book Contact; a small reminder that, no matter what, you'll be there for her in spirit.

A Tesla model, should Mr. Musk ever get around to making one.
Never have to worry about engine fires, and should save the cost of the car on gas by the end of the year.

Erm, make sure your communication skills (written, verbal, and 'visual', ie pictures) are up to snuff. The college route has a few more labs and hands-on experience, ensuring that you can help people get their points across WELL will make you stand out, whereas an inability to communicate clearly could snuff your chances. Philosophy classes will be particularly valuable for becoming a better written communicator.

Glucose is a strict subset of 'carbohydrates' ... many of which are more fructose (which tastes sweeter without triggering 'no longer hungry' warnings) or sucrose (which is some sort of glucose/fructose combination) than pure glucose (which basically everything in the body uses as fuel).

Fructose/Sucrose at least seems to lead to "fatter and dumber"; not sure there are any records of what happens when you go with a primarily glucose-based diet.

Disclaimer: The following is not an expert opinion, and almost certainly fouls up technical names involved:

Not arguing that the paleo diet is correct, but I'm not sure 'eating what we evolved to eat' in-and-of-itself is a fallacy by appeal to nature, much less a fallacy at all - our bodies have evolved certain proteins, enzymes, processes, and what-have-you which interlink in specific ways both internally to the digestive system and externally to other bodily systems (notably, by common problems, the cardiac and adipose/energy storage) in order to keep the whole system running, and keeping the whole system running is best done by eating those things in some set of proportions which allows our body to appropriately handle the lifecycle of that resource within the body, ie, 'eating what we evolved to eat'. This does have some further caveats, involving affordability; availability; individuality; and the ability to discover the optimal with precision, but as a general rule, my point that "'eating what we evolved to eat' is not erroneous" should be considered to hold.

I think a better way to understand the error of Paleo-practitioners is to say that they are committing the composition/division fallacy described here on the site you linked, in that they assume that what was good for humans then is good for humans now, despite 150k years of evolution, combined with a possible appeal to nature in assuming that what those humans ate was indeed the best diet for those humans (I do not know enough about the results of research performed in that field, and I have not reviewed argument in that area enough to make a claim either way).

Apparently sports riots in soccer come about because the soccer teams are related to various political factions, at least throughout most of Europe.