Hopefully, you only bought 0.3mL syringes. I doubt an overdose of epinephrine would be good for you.

Also, having an untrained person give you a shot with a standard needle and vial is extremely dangerous, they could forget to bleed the air out of the syringe and give you an air-embolism, or give you the wrong dose. The whole point of an auto-injector is that it's as fool-proof as possible

Yes, but how does one take big business out of government by electing a famous representative of big business as president? That is the part I don't understand.
If you want to drain the swamp, why elect someone who helped create it?

They cancelled Bayer's Asprin patents after WWII, to punish Bayer for helping the Nazis, so there is already some legal precedent.

Where I work, the only person who gets to work remotely is the CEO (who is also the sole owner).

Economies can be repaired, Ecosystems can't.

I hate Trump, and everything he stands for, but after reading the full Paris Agreement I think this might be an occurrence "accidentally got it right"

There is a lot of language about requiring developed nations to give financial support to developing nations, while actual pollution reduction is purely optional. (there is a huge difference in meaning between the words 'should' and 'shall' when it comes to legal documents).

With no pre-set targets to aim for, and no real penalties for failing to meet self-set targets, this Agreement seems to be more about redistribution of wealth than it is about fighting climate change.

If you install a fiber connection to it, and power it with a belt driven generator (driven by an electric motor sitting outside the cage), you can safely use it via remote terminal without compromising the integrity of the Faraday cage.

An EMP might take out the remote terminal and external motor, but everything inside will be fine. Since you still have a working belt-driven generator, you can use a lawnmower engine or something to drive the belt, and run your electronics even without a working power grid.

The author puts the difficulty of opting-out in term of numerous, confusing, and hard-to-find settings that need to be changed.

All of these settings must be stored in a database somewhere on the HD, why not create something that directly edits the values and automates the process?

At the very least, it appears to have violated the 6th amendment provision for a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".

This ruling would seem to indicate that many of the "closed" cases were decided outside of their proper jurisdiction. If the way that the venue (and thus the jury) was chosen didn't follow the law as it was written at the time (regardless of interpretation at the time), is the ruling still valid?

I could reduce unemployment claims to zero overnight, it's easy. Just make everyone ineligible for unemployment and POOF, no more claims.
This is why unemployment claims are a terrible measure of actual unemployment level, because it ignores everyone who doesn't (or can't) file a claim.
If the number of claims drops, does it mean less people are unemployed, or does it just mean less people are trying to claim it?

As far as the S&P goes, Trump has no control over that, and it's only a sign that corporations are seeing a far more corporate-friendly government. It also benefits the upper class far more than the middle class (the majority of capital gains are claimed by people with incomes above 200k/year)

I will give him credit for the reduction in immigration, but it's questionable if that is actually a good thing. Remember, EVERY person in America (other than the native americans) is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. If they had done something like this 150 years ago, most of us probably wouldn't exist. To say "I hate immigrants" is no different than saying "I hate my great grandparents".

Nothing he says is inconsistent, you just have to read between the lines.

For example, when he says "a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks", what he really means is "the 'current' understanding disagrees with my personal beliefs and desires, therefore, the problem must be the 'current' understanding, so we need a 'better' one"

All we really need (from a ground-launch perspective) is just enough to get into orbit. Any flights beyond there could be launched from orbit.

Do you really want to spend weeks traveling to mars in a cramped rocket nose-cone, or would you rather ride in a large roomy ship that was built without the constraints of having to fit on top of a single rocket?

What happened to the space suits we have been using?

Did someone accidentally burn down the warehouse containing every existing suit, and every copy of the blueprints for them?

This was the first thing I thought of. If you force the rain to fall early, in order to break up the clouds, what happens to the place where that rain normally falls?

I'm still waiting for the version of the mastercard that includes a holographic AI assistant, that we were promised in the early 90s