....they clearly forgot about the existence of electricity...
Yes, yes, sun spots, the sun itself, radiation belts, the solar wind and the cores of geologically active planets and sunspots all have nothing to do with electromagnetism, at least in the view of astrophysics. Photons, binding energy, emission spectra, these neither have anything to do with electromagnetism nor are they the basis for how astronomers conduct their work. Stars are never described as plasmas, and neither is the solar wind. That is a very accurate representation of the science. You clearly understand it well and are fit to criticize it.
Sorry, but I can't help but be snarky in reply to a statement so blind. I'll try to keep that to minimum, and try to be obvious about it.
In a cloud of gas, in which only one atom in 10,000 is ionized, that is missing or having one electron too much, will have the electric force be the dominant one by far. Gravity is 36 orders of magnitude less effective on such a cloud of gas or, more correctly called a plasma. All astronomers and cosmologists need to understand something of plasma physics as well as their current way of looking at the universe.
If you simply look at the constants, then yes, electric forces dominate over gravity. If you look at the net charge of the cloud, then no it doesn't, because unlike with gravity, the opposite and negative charges as will exist in a plasma will cancel out. Yes the ionization means it's conductive, and will respond to external electromagnetic fields, but the cloud itself is emitting a negligible electric field over any astronomically meaningful distance. Ergo another astronomically close cloud will experience a negligible force compared to gravity, because the net charge is negligible compared to the net mass. What, are you arguing for the effect of a miniscule dipole moment, some kind of inter-stellar Van Deer Waals Forces?
Let me just cut to the chase here. Your theory fails hard-core because you simply cannot explain the well-known and well-understood parts of the universe with it, which you kinda have to do to have a chance of being right.
The sun is very much like the kind of cloud you describe, only extremely ionized. It is not a thing that might be considered a plasma, it is the canonical example of a plasma, and very much considered so in models and theories. The sum of the absolute values of charges of the particles in the sun must be absolutely ridiculous. So while very energetic electromagnetically, e.g. due to the well-known phenomenon of it glowing across a wind range of the EM spectrum among many other things, the net electric charge is very small and the electric field is too. If electricity is supposed to dominate gravity, then its effect should be very apparent in our sun and our solar system. Yet gravity is currently doing the job to a ridiculously accurate degree, and adding electric forces in only makes it less so.
The thing you simply don't realize is that there are electromagnetic effects considered in many phenomenon in the universe, but for another great many it simply isn't contributing anything, and gravity does in fact dominate.
Fictional constructs such as dark matter and energy and even black holes are unnecessary, if the electric forces is taken into account in addition to gravity.
Yes, yes! If you simple put 'electric charge' where the dark matter is supposed to be, everything works! Also, black holes, whose "conventional" theories of operation have nothing to do with electricity! How could Stephen forget about that, I ask??
Seriously, though. "Dark Matter" is just matter we can't see and we can't see if for the very mundane reason that there isn't enough light coming from it, either emitted or reflected, for us to see. What mass-less charge carriers you're proposing, and why they effect uncharged objects just the same, is a question that doesn't need answering. "Dark Energy" is the only thing you should t
Too often these days, when scientists come across an anomaly, the idea that this might mean that a cherished theory is totally wrong or at least needs adjusting does not come into their mind at all.
Uh, no, it occurs to them all right. But usually whatever they are looking at isn't nearly enough to actually justify thinking the established theory is wrong. This, for example, is not all that much of an anomaly. It does not directly contradict our theory of planet formation, the simplest explanations do not require re-working a theory that otherwise has made many excellent predictions.
Why do people get this idea that scientists don't WANT to up-end existing theory. They'd all LOVE, absolutely LOVE, to be the person who makes a discovery/observation/experiment that completely up-ends science as we know it.
Practically all the scientists whose names you know from history are ones who took the established theory and turned it on its ear, or made significant extensions/improvements to the new world-changing theory.
Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Young, Faraday, Plank, to name a few -- You seriously think that these scientists wouldn't jump at the chance to add their names to that list, if they thought there was the slightest chance in hell that this observation could lead to a new theory of planet formation? The only thing stopping them is scientific rigor.
But you're right... In their blind adherence to scientific orthodoxy, they clearly forgot about the existence of electricity, which clearly shows that the existing model is wrong. Yeah. That's it.
No, in this re-imagining, I'm imagining that Starbuck will be either: Post-op transgender (50/50 odds on either direction), or a hermaphrodite who never had gender-assignment surgery.
You say I should go to Pixar films. I say you should watch the Saw movies. People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.
Claim?
WTF does "claim" have to do with it?
They made a BSG series that is not for kids. So... don't show it to your kids. You might as well place some "claim" on Saw and say they should make that kid friendly.
I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age. I'm sorry that's hard for you to handle.
Hey, I have an idea, then -- try showing them the thing that you enjoyed when you were their age! The original series is available both on DVD and on broadcast TV!
So there are multiple versions of a thing, and some of those versions you don't like because they aren't kid friendly. I don't see why this is a problem.
By the way, there are multiple versions of the tales of the Brothers Grimm, and some of them are not kid-with-modern-parent friendly! I guess they never should have made the version of Snow White where they force the Witch to put on red-hot iron shoes and dance until she died! OOOOOORRRRRRRR -- you should stick to the Disney version.
You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.
Yes, indeed. China is a Federal Constitutional Republic, among other things. The original error in this thread was when someone said "we're not a democracy, we're a republic", as though they are mutually exclusive, or as though either word on its own fully describes a government.
A Republic is a government which has a leader or chief executive who is not a hereditary monarch. A Democracy is a nation ruled either directly or indirectly by the people. They are not exclusive, and neither term necessarily implies the presence or absence of the other -- though nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.
We are a Republic. A Constitutional Republic. We're also a Democracy, specifically a Representative Democracy, which is to say indirect rule by the people via elections.
People are trying to be pedantic but are creating extra restrictions that don't exist for the words in question, which is the opposite of pedantry. It's basically arguing "This cat is orange!" and "No! This cat is fuzzy!"
We're a Representative Democracy. That's a kind of Democracy. As opposed to a Direct Democracy, which is what a lot of people mean when they say "We aren't a Democracy". Well, we aren't that kind of democracy. But we are a kind of Democracy. So depending on what you mean, it is perfectly valid to say we're a democracy.
"Republic" fundamentally means "A nation whose leader is not a King or other hereditary ruler" -- the CIA's totally-not-Cold-War-politics-derived definitions notwithstanding. Iraq under Saddam was a Republic. China is a Republic. So are we. Just a different kind.
I remember one textbook I had as a child argued that the reason that Lowland Scots prospered in comparison with Highland Scots was due the Protestant work ethic bestowed upon them through Prebyterianism - in comparison, the Highlanders succumbed to their lethargic Catholic proclivities. Hilarious in hindsight, but slightly disturbing as real teaching.
That's hilarious indeed, when according to my textbook the real reason was that there was an immortal Highlander who kept running around cutting peoples' heads off while screaming "There can be only one!" until someone finally managed to explain to him that the rule was about immortals, not Scotsmen. But by then the damage had been done in the Highlands.
You have to seed the pool of reasoning... If they have no basis for "why" how can you expect them to reason out why something else happens?
Typical Q&A with the science teacher: Why is the sky blue?
Because it reflects blue light.
Why does it reflect blue light?
Because it's blue.
I recall an anecdote from my high school physics teacher about when his young daughter asked "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
So he launches into the full scientific explanation but without using any of the big words -- simplifying concepts for his audience was something he was pretty good at -- which included not only why light is separated into colors, but why the color that reaches us from the sky is blue. He was certainly no slouch in his physics, and wanted to give his daughter full credit for her curiosity.
But when he finishes, his daughter simply responds "No, Daddy. Why is the sky blue?"
"Because angels made it that way," he said with resignation, and that was the answer satisfied her.
I think this goes back to a much earlier post which pointed out that a child's questions are simple and not necessarily expressive of their true desires. The motivations that go into the question are important. In this case, I'm guessing his daughter just wanted reassurance that things happened for a reason. I don't know. But it wasn't scientific curiosity, that's for sure.
Though I'd be really curious to know if she retained any of what he'd told her for later when she could better understand it.:)
So... let me get this straight... you plan to predict exactly where the bees will be running out of gas, and put some hanging sugar water right there? Because otherwise, this scheme won't work! Once again, exhausted bees drop to the ground. It's like an automobile running out of gas. Bees are not individually intelligent, and they are not programmed by nature to hunt out food when they start to run low. They fly to where they are programmed to go, or until they can't anymore. Then they start walking.
Bees are not "programmed" like a Tomahawk Missile. They are individually intelligent enough to understand the communication dances of their brethren, to follow the directions while avoiding obstacles on their own, and to see, identify, and fly to food near their destination. They have to do this, because the coordinates simply aren't precise enough. That's why you'll find bees on different sections of your garden, guided by a single scout, because each of them is capable of finding nearby food. If there's food, hanging or otherwise, near where they were told to go, then they'll go to it, because that might as well have been the 'real' destination for all they know.
Which is exactly why TFA suggests you put your bee-saving "energy drinks" on the ground near your flowers.
Yes, I can see where that would be even more helpful for bees but the fundamental problem is that there isn't enough food, and any food source will help that. When the exhausted bee is so immobile as to appear to be dead, you're making essentially the same gamble that you're predicting exactly where the bee will get tired so the food will be right in front of them when they drop. Or you're going out and scouring your garden every day for collapsed bees and hand feeding them, an extremely inefficient and ultimately unworkable solution.
Consent doesn't matter one tiny shred in conviction or sentencing of child sex.
Yeah, that's great, but we were talking about whether it was actually violent. In the hypothetical example of an 18-year-old having consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriend, it isn't violent. That it's legally called rape and a violent crime is immaterial to the actuality of violence. However real rape is inherently violent.
In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that those who offend against children WITHOUT violence are actually given more harsh sentences, under the justification of "that man MANIPULATED the victim into consenting".
In those cases where actual children (i.e. not the example given), I can't say I necessarily find that inappropriate. Manipulating a child's mind into thinking what is happening to them is appropriate is a heinous form of emotional abuse even beyond the act itself.
On rare occasions, the "directions" can be wrong, or some other problem happens, and a bee does not find the correct patch of flowers. In such cases, the bee can become "exhausted" (it has used up its store of honey). An exhausted bee cannot fly! As mentioned by OP, in fact, people often mistake them for dead. So ANYTHING hanging is not going to do these bees any good.
Of course it will do them good.
How did the bee get to the location at which it collapsed from exhaustion? It flew there. Why did it then collapse? Because there was no food there. What would have happened if instead there was food? It would have eaten the food and been fine.
Of course the bee has to recognize the food source, thus color is important. That's also why TFA recommends growing bee-friendly flowers. Not because the exhausted little bee is going to climb up the flower, but because providing food for them helps prevent them from becoming exhausted in the first place.
After having read about this as a child, I tried it on a bee that I found outside and originally took for dead. But then it did move a little. I gave it a sugar+water solution to drink, and a couple of minutes later it flew off. I have repeated this experiment many times, and it has not failed me yet. Except when the bee was actually dead.
That's cool (and really cute), but hand-feeding exhausted bees isn't really a solution unless you spend inordinate amounts of time in your garden looking for tired bees. Having a food source they can find themselves will help.
Did you put the sugar water in a suitably colored container? Bees find food by sight not smell. So if what you have the water in doesn't look like a flower, they won't go check it out and discover the food.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes, sun spots, the sun itself, radiation belts, the solar wind and the cores of geologically active planets and sunspots all have nothing to do with electromagnetism, at least in the view of astrophysics. Photons, binding energy, emission spectra, these neither have anything to do with electromagnetism nor are they the basis for how astronomers conduct their work. Stars are never described as plasmas, and neither is the solar wind. That is a very accurate representation of the science. You clearly understand it well and are fit to criticize it.
Sorry, but I can't help but be snarky in reply to a statement so blind. I'll try to keep that to minimum, and try to be obvious about it.
In a cloud of gas, in which only one atom in 10,000 is ionized, that is missing or having one electron too much, will have the electric force be the dominant one by far. Gravity is 36 orders of magnitude less effective on such a cloud of gas or, more correctly called a plasma. All astronomers and cosmologists need to understand something of plasma physics as well as their current way of looking at the universe.
If you simply look at the constants, then yes, electric forces dominate over gravity. If you look at the net charge of the cloud, then no it doesn't, because unlike with gravity, the opposite and negative charges as will exist in a plasma will cancel out. Yes the ionization means it's conductive, and will respond to external electromagnetic fields, but the cloud itself is emitting a negligible electric field over any astronomically meaningful distance. Ergo another astronomically close cloud will experience a negligible force compared to gravity, because the net charge is negligible compared to the net mass. What, are you arguing for the effect of a miniscule dipole moment, some kind of inter-stellar Van Deer Waals Forces?
Let me just cut to the chase here. Your theory fails hard-core because you simply cannot explain the well-known and well-understood parts of the universe with it, which you kinda have to do to have a chance of being right.
The sun is very much like the kind of cloud you describe, only extremely ionized. It is not a thing that might be considered a plasma, it is the canonical example of a plasma, and very much considered so in models and theories. The sum of the absolute values of charges of the particles in the sun must be absolutely ridiculous. So while very energetic electromagnetically, e.g. due to the well-known phenomenon of it glowing across a wind range of the EM spectrum among many other things, the net electric charge is very small and the electric field is too. If electricity is supposed to dominate gravity, then its effect should be very apparent in our sun and our solar system. Yet gravity is currently doing the job to a ridiculously accurate degree, and adding electric forces in only makes it less so.
The thing you simply don't realize is that there are electromagnetic effects considered in many phenomenon in the universe, but for another great many it simply isn't contributing anything, and gravity does in fact dominate.
Fictional constructs such as dark matter and energy and even black holes are unnecessary, if the electric forces is taken into account in addition to gravity.
Yes, yes! If you simple put 'electric charge' where the dark matter is supposed to be, everything works! Also, black holes, whose "conventional" theories of operation have nothing to do with electricity! How could Stephen forget about that, I ask??
Seriously, though. "Dark Matter" is just matter we can't see and we can't see if for the very mundane reason that there isn't enough light coming from it, either emitted or reflected, for us to see. What mass-less charge carriers you're proposing, and why they effect uncharged objects just the same, is a question that doesn't need answering. "Dark Energy" is the only thing you should t
Oh yes. I see it now.
Too often these days, when scientists come across an anomaly, the idea that this might mean that a cherished theory is totally wrong or at least needs adjusting does not come into their mind at all.
Uh, no, it occurs to them all right. But usually whatever they are looking at isn't nearly enough to actually justify thinking the established theory is wrong. This, for example, is not all that much of an anomaly. It does not directly contradict our theory of planet formation, the simplest explanations do not require re-working a theory that otherwise has made many excellent predictions.
Why do people get this idea that scientists don't WANT to up-end existing theory. They'd all LOVE, absolutely LOVE, to be the person who makes a discovery/observation/experiment that completely up-ends science as we know it.
Practically all the scientists whose names you know from history are ones who took the established theory and turned it on its ear, or made significant extensions/improvements to the new world-changing theory.
Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Young, Faraday, Plank, to name a few -- You seriously think that these scientists wouldn't jump at the chance to add their names to that list, if they thought there was the slightest chance in hell that this observation could lead to a new theory of planet formation? The only thing stopping them is scientific rigor.
But you're right... In their blind adherence to scientific orthodoxy, they clearly forgot about the existence of electricity, which clearly shows that the existing model is wrong. Yeah. That's it.
Starbuck will be a guy again?
*yawn* They've already done that.
No, in this re-imagining, I'm imagining that Starbuck will be either: Post-op transgender (50/50 odds on either direction), or a hermaphrodite who never had gender-assignment surgery.
You say I should go to Pixar films. I say you should watch the Saw movies. People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.
Claim?
WTF does "claim" have to do with it?
They made a BSG series that is not for kids. So... don't show it to your kids. You might as well place some "claim" on Saw and say they should make that kid friendly.
I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age. I'm sorry that's hard for you to handle.
Hey, I have an idea, then -- try showing them the thing that you enjoyed when you were their age! The original series is available both on DVD and on broadcast TV!
So there are multiple versions of a thing, and some of those versions you don't like because they aren't kid friendly. I don't see why this is a problem.
By the way, there are multiple versions of the tales of the Brothers Grimm, and some of them are not kid-with-modern-parent friendly! I guess they never should have made the version of Snow White where they force the Witch to put on red-hot iron shoes and dance until she died! OOOOOORRRRRRRR -- you should stick to the Disney version.
Naw that wouldn't work.
Londo Molari looked more like a chicken.
Chicken? WTF kind of chickens do they have where you're from?!
No, the real source material for Londo is obvious once you see it. :)
...
Noooooooo, I'd like money even more, because I'd desperately need it.
There have been some *really* retarded replies to my original joke. This was one of them.
Self-deprecating nerds should also enjoy it, assuming there's available stack space :)
Yeah, stack overflows are a much bigger concern when they mean being crushed by a toppling pile of pressed wood pulp.
Okay, they are plenty of obvious ones. :)
You can get that from a hooker for a lot less and the problems she causes you later are probably more easily fixed.
Which is of course why it's illegal to be or use the services of a hooker, while that isn't true for insurance executives.
Well, the course I took in high school about screwing was called "Health Education" so I would think a lot!
You could call any country with a constitution, a federal government and indirect representation a "federal constitutional republic", and since just about every country has a constitution of some sort, I'm gonna go with "federal democratic republic" as the title of our type of government.
Yes, indeed. China is a Federal Constitutional Republic, among other things. The original error in this thread was when someone said "we're not a democracy, we're a republic", as though they are mutually exclusive, or as though either word on its own fully describes a government.
A Republic is a government which has a leader or chief executive who is not a hereditary monarch. A Democracy is a nation ruled either directly or indirectly by the people. They are not exclusive, and neither term necessarily implies the presence or absence of the other -- though nearly all Democracies are Republics, there is one obvious counter example.
We are a Republic. A Constitutional Republic. We're also a Democracy, specifically a Representative Democracy, which is to say indirect rule by the people via elections.
People are trying to be pedantic but are creating extra restrictions that don't exist for the words in question, which is the opposite of pedantry. It's basically arguing "This cat is orange!" and "No! This cat is fuzzy!"
We're a Representative Democracy. That's a kind of Democracy. As opposed to a Direct Democracy, which is what a lot of people mean when they say "We aren't a Democracy". Well, we aren't that kind of democracy. But we are a kind of Democracy. So depending on what you mean, it is perfectly valid to say we're a democracy.
"Republic" fundamentally means "A nation whose leader is not a King or other hereditary ruler" -- the CIA's totally-not-Cold-War-politics-derived definitions notwithstanding. Iraq under Saddam was a Republic. China is a Republic. So are we. Just a different kind.
In fact I think that book should be required reading for any self-respecting nerd.
Oh, whew. Good thing I'm off the hook, then. I didn't need to add anything to my reading list!
I remember one textbook I had as a child argued that the reason that Lowland Scots prospered in comparison with Highland Scots was due the Protestant work ethic bestowed upon them through Prebyterianism - in comparison, the Highlanders succumbed to their lethargic Catholic proclivities. Hilarious in hindsight, but slightly disturbing as real teaching.
That's hilarious indeed, when according to my textbook the real reason was that there was an immortal Highlander who kept running around cutting peoples' heads off while screaming "There can be only one!" until someone finally managed to explain to him that the rule was about immortals, not Scotsmen. But by then the damage had been done in the Highlands.
Makes a lot more sense, don't you think?
You have to seed the pool of reasoning... If they have no basis for "why" how can you expect them to reason out why something else happens?
Typical Q&A with the science teacher:
Why is the sky blue?
Because it reflects blue light.
Why does it reflect blue light?
Because it's blue.
I recall an anecdote from my high school physics teacher about when his young daughter asked "Daddy, why is the sky blue?"
So he launches into the full scientific explanation but without using any of the big words -- simplifying concepts for his audience was something he was pretty good at -- which included not only why light is separated into colors, but why the color that reaches us from the sky is blue. He was certainly no slouch in his physics, and wanted to give his daughter full credit for her curiosity.
But when he finishes, his daughter simply responds "No, Daddy. Why is the sky blue?"
"Because angels made it that way," he said with resignation, and that was the answer satisfied her.
I think this goes back to a much earlier post which pointed out that a child's questions are simple and not necessarily expressive of their true desires. The motivations that go into the question are important. In this case, I'm guessing his daughter just wanted reassurance that things happened for a reason. I don't know. But it wasn't scientific curiosity, that's for sure.
Though I'd be really curious to know if she retained any of what he'd told her for later when she could better understand it. :)
I first read this as "Where do babies come from? From the sixties!"
Which is silly because most of them came from the mid to late 40s. :)
So... let me get this straight... you plan to predict exactly where the bees will be running out of gas, and put some hanging sugar water right there? Because otherwise, this scheme won't work! Once again, exhausted bees drop to the ground. It's like an automobile running out of gas. Bees are not individually intelligent, and they are not programmed by nature to hunt out food when they start to run low. They fly to where they are programmed to go, or until they can't anymore. Then they start walking.
Bees are not "programmed" like a Tomahawk Missile. They are individually intelligent enough to understand the communication dances of their brethren, to follow the directions while avoiding obstacles on their own, and to see, identify, and fly to food near their destination. They have to do this, because the coordinates simply aren't precise enough. That's why you'll find bees on different sections of your garden, guided by a single scout, because each of them is capable of finding nearby food. If there's food, hanging or otherwise, near where they were told to go, then they'll go to it, because that might as well have been the 'real' destination for all they know.
Which is exactly why TFA suggests you put your bee-saving "energy drinks" on the ground near your flowers.
Yes, I can see where that would be even more helpful for bees but the fundamental problem is that there isn't enough food, and any food source will help that. When the exhausted bee is so immobile as to appear to be dead, you're making essentially the same gamble that you're predicting exactly where the bee will get tired so the food will be right in front of them when they drop. Or you're going out and scouring your garden every day for collapsed bees and hand feeding them, an extremely inefficient and ultimately unworkable solution.
Consent doesn't matter one tiny shred in conviction or sentencing of child sex.
Yeah, that's great, but we were talking about whether it was actually violent. In the hypothetical example of an 18-year-old having consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriend, it isn't violent. That it's legally called rape and a violent crime is immaterial to the actuality of violence. However real rape is inherently violent.
In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that those who offend against children WITHOUT violence are actually given more harsh sentences, under the justification of "that man MANIPULATED the victim into consenting".
In those cases where actual children (i.e. not the example given), I can't say I necessarily find that inappropriate. Manipulating a child's mind into thinking what is happening to them is appropriate is a heinous form of emotional abuse even beyond the act itself.
I left the exact numbers when I left the firm and though I might be able to get the numbers from them, I never post in the same slashdot thread twice.
Wow, my eyes are misting reading this post. That is a superbly crafted troll, my friend, like Slashdot rarely sees. Bravo, and I mean it.
On rare occasions, the "directions" can be wrong, or some other problem happens, and a bee does not find the correct patch of flowers. In such cases, the bee can become "exhausted" (it has used up its store of honey). An exhausted bee cannot fly! As mentioned by OP, in fact, people often mistake them for dead. So ANYTHING hanging is not going to do these bees any good.
Of course it will do them good.
How did the bee get to the location at which it collapsed from exhaustion? It flew there. Why did it then collapse? Because there was no food there. What would have happened if instead there was food? It would have eaten the food and been fine.
Of course the bee has to recognize the food source, thus color is important. That's also why TFA recommends growing bee-friendly flowers. Not because the exhausted little bee is going to climb up the flower, but because providing food for them helps prevent them from becoming exhausted in the first place.
After having read about this as a child, I tried it on a bee that I found outside and originally took for dead. But then it did move a little. I gave it a sugar+water solution to drink, and a couple of minutes later it flew off. I have repeated this experiment many times, and it has not failed me yet. Except when the bee was actually dead.
That's cool (and really cute), but hand-feeding exhausted bees isn't really a solution unless you spend inordinate amounts of time in your garden looking for tired bees. Having a food source they can find themselves will help.
Did you put the sugar water in a suitably colored container? Bees find food by sight not smell. So if what you have the water in doesn't look like a flower, they won't go check it out and discover the food.
Pretty sure I'll still like money then too. :)
Yes, but is it providing health care to those who need it? Or is it providing health care until you need it?
*blank stare*
They're making money. Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right.
I like money.
You shouldn't cut people's benefits because they share a name with someone with a bench warrant
Ah, yes, and now you understand the real problem.
next they'll make up a scret list of names that keep people off planes.
Hehe.
Lady behind the counter, just after telling me that I was on a TSA Watch List: "There must be an evil Chris Burke out there."
Me: *shifty eyes* Yeah, some other Chris Burke must be evil...