Remind me to ensure my AAA is active if I ride with you. Don't you carry a toolkit even if our car is new? Sheesh...We can find something to move the lever. I probably have a Swiss Army knife so we can fashion a tool if we must.
If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server then uninstalled it, why would you expect it to leave the DLNA server running?
I would expect a turned on server to remain running if I turned on another tool to enable it. Yes. I would expect that application to not revert settings in other applications because it was removed. Then again, I use Linux.
Given that we are showing how little is known about DNA should we really be doing genetic modifications to things that might be important - like humans or food?
Go to the public court and give your opinion when you see a case like this, you can probably argue against or for legal procedures or perceived court misconduct in an objection and with the permission of the court. The judge may not give you permission which means you will need to ask them permission to a hearing with the judge and or prosecution. Submit that the procedures are illegal based on your interpretation of the law (citations help but a good judge will check case law) and ask that the judge reconsider the results of a decision.
They are usually pretty reasonable and you do not have to have a vested interest for the defendant but are acting as a friend to the court. Your courts may be different in name but they generally allow for such. Go and argue the merits of the case, in your shoes, based on the inappropriate actions of the court's procedure. The judge will then make a decision. Ask to appeal it if he judges against you. Tell him where the procedure of the law was not followed and appeal his decision. You will now be in a new court with a new judge who will rule on the merits of your argument.
You can probably appeal it a few more times if your have a sound argument and a reasonable interpretation (as your evidence) and have a higher court review the judgments. As it is a procedural error you are arguing then you need to be aware of the law, you can usually ask a judge to explain how they interpret the law. However, you can only appeal so much as it is just a proceeds so far unless you have a constitutional argument concerning the procedure not being followed.
Just bitching will not do anything. No, I am not a lawyer, not your lawyer, and this is just my opinion based on my understanding of the laws in my country and how I suspect they may be similar to your own. You are usually free to challenge the court but they are not always obligated to be willing to accept the argument. In your case you are saying the court wronged the children and that they must be given the chance to defend themselves properly. Money has nothing to do with it. Until the court rules on this and applies the standard then the state should not be able to prosecute them until the state can uphold its legal obligation to provide for their defense. Thus it is a procedural error because the state failed its cause and did not fully disclose AND articulate the defendants rights.
Go do it... I wish you luck. I do not know if I agree with your view (I seem to, hard to argue that one) and I suspect it is worse in my country. Pissing and moaning could be time better spent looking for applicable forms on the Government's Judicial Branch's website and then filling them out. Go ahead and argue it. You can do it for free pretty much. It is not even hard. Bonus points when you do it for someone who is a person likely guilty of something you abhor.
Some of the best media comes from a source that many of us, in the West, are prejudiced about (intentionally or unknowingly). Al Jazeera (spelling?) is actually fairly well informed, surprisingly objective, and willing to approach subjects that are foreign to us in the West. Obviously no single news source should be consumed as factual by the consumer. Laziness on behalf of the consumer is, by no means, a responsibility of the provider. No news service has been, or ever will be, without bias. This has never been the case though people think it was better in the past - like conservatives long for the 50s. They think it was good, investigative, and idealistic in the past because they consumed media that fit their views.
Al Jazeera has biases but they are not what you probably assume and they are open about it while still being willing to be critical of even themselves. They remind me of PBS in a way and we can all generally agree that PBS is biased at times and if we are willing to be honest with ourselves even if we agree with their biases. We can all agree that Fox is biased if we are honest. Check out what the press did during the French Revolution. They can be cock-suckers and can not be trusted. It is up to you to read beyond the news. Consider the news like Google, consider it the start page. Like Google you may need to click more links, figuratively, to get a factual response and, quite often, you really should be reading more than one single link.
So, they have a slant but it is right in front of you and obvious and factual. The key is the last part. They will even point out facts, and discuss them and investigate them, on subjects we would not dream of publishing. They will do this while being critical of the religious and governing bodies of the various countries which they typically cover. They are willing to only share certain media in certain governments so the government has ultimate control in some areas I understand. However, they have an international coverage as well and they will do all sorts of things that do get censored. They worked hard to have this right. I am impressed with them. They take their obligation seriously and they take their consequences seriously. They are a news organization not a martyr. They have had enough martyrs already and that is how they got these rights. They are serious business...
Anyhow, I figured I'd share my opinion because you spoke of the drone war and how much the differences are between the perceptions. If people were more inclined to get their media from sources outside of their comfort zone then maybe this would change?
Interesting... What you see as destroying democracy is what I see as ensuring democracy does not turn into tyranny or the masses ruling the minority. I see them as being there to ensure your rights are being monitored because you are not willing to put forth the effort to know and monitor those rights on your own. That is my view. I welcome your view. How is it that you see them destroying democracy?
If the government agreed then it would not happen. As such, we can rationally conclude the government is not in agreement with this. Perhaps you mean a specific branch of the government agrees or, worse, perhaps they are paying lip service and do not actually agree? Either way, it needs to stop but it is less energy to complain about it and hope that it changes. I submit that even a wall of text is not enough to effect change.
I did almost type "affect change" just to annoy people. I figured I would not even though I do mean to *also* affect change - as in change the way we work to change things because, frankly, complaining online has been a mainstay of the internet before the advent of the WWW and it has yet to have a meaningful impact and this seems quite unlikely to be different in the future.
That is great. Now give an effective solution and why you feel it would work. Be aware that I am not disagreeing with you on principle but I am approaching your argument with reason as my goal. I will respond in kind. I may learn something this way and, combined, we may even have a rational response.
I am deathly allergic to some stinging insect venoms - wasps and hornets and varied by strength of their venom and number of stings. I am not going to die from a bumblebee sting or a honeybee sting - neither will sting you unless you make them defensive and piss them off. Wasps and hornets are a fickle bunch typically and generally have stronger venom.
Having said that, I would probably shoot a wasp's nest if I thought it would be of any benefit. I doubt I really would. If I do not shoot them I know where they are and can avoid them. If I shoot them they will simply nest elsewhere. I can not conscionable eradicate them nor can I effectively eradicate them. They are, still, a low risk element in my ecological system even with my allergy. None of this prevents me from shooting them for amusement however and my morals do not entirely dismiss the idea but the karma hit would be massive unless I justified it away.
I knew there was a reason I liked you. Few understand their responsibilities (or are willing to accept them) as citizens. Fewer still understand the differences. This is the root of our problem, I think. I have tossed some gibberish into this thread. It will be ignored. Oh well... It is not frustrating to watch if you look at it right. It is actually just an example of animal behavior at both every scale including meta and it is absolutely humorous to witness if viewed in the right light. We expect fundamental behaviors without actually doing the work to verify those goals are met which is, also, a natural trait. We have to behave unnaturally in order to get an unnatural result and expecting anything different is, by definition, insanity.
Your Utopian idylls are trite. This does not mean I do not agree with you on principle. It means I think you would have to be a complete moron to expect anything different. This includes the lies, the act, and the continued action long after we have finished this conversation. Bitching about it online does you no good. Your apathy, laziness, and disregard for your social contract obligations are why they will keep doing what they are doing. You can blame it on them but, frankly, they are only doing what comes naturally and to think it would ever be different is to spit in the face of reality.
It is the courts, the judicial branch, of government that is most accessible (other than press which is speech but is something we ostensibly own ourselves) branch of the government. It is you duty to know your rights and your obligations. It is your job to monitor the courts and to use speech to inform others when there is a miscarriage of justice. We have failed in our duty to ensure we maintain this right because we have stopped viewing it as our obligation. Spend a day of your vacation. Go to the local district courthouse. Watch... Just watch. If you see something you do not like, speak about it. However, you must be vigilant and educated to do this. And no, most of you have no idea about how the law actually works which is why you should go to the courthouse.
It is you who should watch the enforcement arms of the government and not the other way around. It is your obligation to keep them in check. It is your, and mine, social failing that has allowed it to reach this point. Spend time at your district court - it starts there. Observe and learn. THEN speak. It starts there and grows out. This is simple but overlooked. Your rights have obligations. The government will do what it can - if we had the power we would not need the permission of the government. We are animals. We will do what we can to be in power. You, as a citizen of your country, are obligated to ensure that they do not - this is an individual responsibility. You can not rely on the press. You can not rely on other people. You, yourself, must make the effort.
I do not know where you live. I live in the United States. I do not care where you go on vacation. There will be a district court represented in every single state and in every single county in this whole country. The courts are generally open to the public. If seating is not enough then demand that they pipe the proceedings outside of the courtroom so that you can watch. You can even ask for permission to address the court as a citizen even if you are not a part of the proceedings - you may be ignored or held in contempt if you annoy them so do not do this unless you must. You have weapons, tools, probably in your country. Use them - you are obligated to.
Do not say that you are only an individual. That excuse does not hold water. It starts with you, the individual, upholding your end of the social contract which is to observe (and be educated) the practices of the government. Most people have no idea what evidence is (it is not proof), have no idea what the state must argue (and it is not proof), and have no idea the differences in preponderance of evidence that must be met by the state for a guilty conviction in a civil trial vs. the evidence that is needed for a criminal trial. It is not beyond all doubt - it is beyond all reasonable doubt. (Converse is that you are mostly likely to have committed the offense and the burden of proof is lowered for that in a civil trial.) It is your job to know these types of details and to watch and ensure that these standards are being met.
So... Do that. That is where it all starts and that is why your founding fathers have set it up this way. That is why courts are public. The judicial pillar of government is accessible to ensure you are getting the results that were intended by the spirit of the law. If you do not do this then you will have your rights trampled on. (There are way to change this. The most accessible is speech.) Spend some time doing your duty, learn, speak out after ensuring you know the law and the procedures. It is your end of your social contract. You do not get rights for nothing - you get them from ensuring they are not trampled on. You get them by insisting they are your rights by birth and by ensuring that the government knows who they work for. The government should be scared of the people, not the other way around.
I believe it should have been described more specifically as their way of creating indecision to help keep the knowledge of Chain Home a secret. The Germans did not know what the Chain Home system was actually doing. They bombed a couple (which were easily replaced and had redundancy built in for Home Office communications - a neat way of doing it) and then gave up which indicates that they really did not have any clue what the purpose was.
On the opposite end of the spectrum SAS crossed the channel to investigate some radio emitters. However, those were used for targeting and not for plane spotting.
Had the Germans known what the Chain Home system was they would have bombed the hell out of them, and likely been successful, which would have likely caused the War Over Europe to go differently.
It is hard to say, as all such intelligence things are, how well they can quantify the results. Current historians attribute it, as near as I can tell, to a simple intelligence oversight on the part of the Germans. They had the technology, they were even using it in their night fighters, but did not really use it on their end as well as they could have during the earliest stages of the bombing campaigns. What they had, to help them out at first, was a lot of people with communications gear who were able to spot aircraft invasions. Technology improved at a very rapid rate during that period. It seems some of the greatest technological advances come during times when we are trying our hardest to either hurt or be prepared to hurt another human being. If we put the same amount into learning how to not... Well...
There was no time when/.was this great thing. It is not now, nor has it ever been, all things to everyone. There are still people here who do not read the article, spout ignorant opinions, and are offensive. I am glad to be one of them.
Anyhow, if you do not like it then there is an 'X' in the upper-left or upper-right corner of your browser. It is how you solve the problems of not liking a site. There is a community online, or the chance to make one, that will suit your needs. You may have to make it yourself, you can, and see if anyone likes your same sensibilities. That is entirely up to you. What is not up to you is to determine how, what, or if an online community should change.
The term "liberal" is pretty situational. It is, at its root, those who want change. Conservatives want to keep things the same. The two terms are more subjective and should not be applied to a single party. Doing so is facile at best and harmful at worst. The divide that we have is a sideshow. You know what to do. You just have apathy, laziness, and fear that keep you from fixing it.
Very very few homosexuals, let's expand to 'alternative sexual lifestyle' people, actually hate straight people due to their normative sexual preferences. There are some but there are fruitcakes of all types, they are people too and we people are batshit crazy... Citation? Look around.
I am a straight guy and one of the most comfortable social environments I have found has been amongst those people. So, in the hope of actually giving you something to think about, "Go get drunk with a fag." Really...
That is what they claimed in the first article about this. It was in the summary as I recall. I doubt I actually RTFA. However, that was the people trying to sell this fake stuff so who knows if they are telling the truth?
I am pretty sure that the money had some conditions with it as well. That may not make it right but let us not pretend that NASA is not getting something for its money.
That being said, how much did it cost last time in inflated dollars? I do not know. I think that may be a good metric to start with and then realize what we may get from this. Then decide if you support it or not. You do not even have to justify it. Just do not like it.
You do not want to know about all these fish I have eaten. I probably should be dead I suppose. Meh... It has been a hell of a ride so far. Keep in mind I am not suggesting one ingest this. However, I managed. My kids are pretty normal but, I mean, come on? I am their dad, they can not be that normal. Still though. They are not diagnosed with anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me to ensure my AAA is active if I ride with you. Don't you carry a toolkit even if our car is new? Sheesh...We can find something to move the lever. I probably have a Swiss Army knife so we can fashion a tool if we must.
If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server then uninstalled it, why would you expect it to leave the DLNA server running?
I would expect a turned on server to remain running if I turned on another tool to enable it. Yes. I would expect that application to not revert settings in other applications because it was removed. Then again, I use Linux.
Given that we are showing how little is known about DNA should we really be doing genetic modifications to things that might be important - like humans or food?
Go to the public court and give your opinion when you see a case like this, you can probably argue against or for legal procedures or perceived court misconduct in an objection and with the permission of the court. The judge may not give you permission which means you will need to ask them permission to a hearing with the judge and or prosecution. Submit that the procedures are illegal based on your interpretation of the law (citations help but a good judge will check case law) and ask that the judge reconsider the results of a decision.
They are usually pretty reasonable and you do not have to have a vested interest for the defendant but are acting as a friend to the court. Your courts may be different in name but they generally allow for such. Go and argue the merits of the case, in your shoes, based on the inappropriate actions of the court's procedure. The judge will then make a decision. Ask to appeal it if he judges against you. Tell him where the procedure of the law was not followed and appeal his decision. You will now be in a new court with a new judge who will rule on the merits of your argument.
You can probably appeal it a few more times if your have a sound argument and a reasonable interpretation (as your evidence) and have a higher court review the judgments. As it is a procedural error you are arguing then you need to be aware of the law, you can usually ask a judge to explain how they interpret the law. However, you can only appeal so much as it is just a proceeds so far unless you have a constitutional argument concerning the procedure not being followed.
Just bitching will not do anything. No, I am not a lawyer, not your lawyer, and this is just my opinion based on my understanding of the laws in my country and how I suspect they may be similar to your own. You are usually free to challenge the court but they are not always obligated to be willing to accept the argument. In your case you are saying the court wronged the children and that they must be given the chance to defend themselves properly. Money has nothing to do with it. Until the court rules on this and applies the standard then the state should not be able to prosecute them until the state can uphold its legal obligation to provide for their defense. Thus it is a procedural error because the state failed its cause and did not fully disclose AND articulate the defendants rights.
Go do it... I wish you luck. I do not know if I agree with your view (I seem to, hard to argue that one) and I suspect it is worse in my country. Pissing and moaning could be time better spent looking for applicable forms on the Government's Judicial Branch's website and then filling them out. Go ahead and argue it. You can do it for free pretty much. It is not even hard. Bonus points when you do it for someone who is a person likely guilty of something you abhor.
Some of the best media comes from a source that many of us, in the West, are prejudiced about (intentionally or unknowingly). Al Jazeera (spelling?) is actually fairly well informed, surprisingly objective, and willing to approach subjects that are foreign to us in the West. Obviously no single news source should be consumed as factual by the consumer. Laziness on behalf of the consumer is, by no means, a responsibility of the provider. No news service has been, or ever will be, without bias. This has never been the case though people think it was better in the past - like conservatives long for the 50s. They think it was good, investigative, and idealistic in the past because they consumed media that fit their views.
Al Jazeera has biases but they are not what you probably assume and they are open about it while still being willing to be critical of even themselves. They remind me of PBS in a way and we can all generally agree that PBS is biased at times and if we are willing to be honest with ourselves even if we agree with their biases. We can all agree that Fox is biased if we are honest. Check out what the press did during the French Revolution. They can be cock-suckers and can not be trusted. It is up to you to read beyond the news. Consider the news like Google, consider it the start page. Like Google you may need to click more links, figuratively, to get a factual response and, quite often, you really should be reading more than one single link.
So, they have a slant but it is right in front of you and obvious and factual. The key is the last part. They will even point out facts, and discuss them and investigate them, on subjects we would not dream of publishing. They will do this while being critical of the religious and governing bodies of the various countries which they typically cover. They are willing to only share certain media in certain governments so the government has ultimate control in some areas I understand. However, they have an international coverage as well and they will do all sorts of things that do get censored. They worked hard to have this right. I am impressed with them. They take their obligation seriously and they take their consequences seriously. They are a news organization not a martyr. They have had enough martyrs already and that is how they got these rights. They are serious business...
Anyhow, I figured I'd share my opinion because you spoke of the drone war and how much the differences are between the perceptions. If people were more inclined to get their media from sources outside of their comfort zone then maybe this would change?
Interesting... What you see as destroying democracy is what I see as ensuring democracy does not turn into tyranny or the masses ruling the minority. I see them as being there to ensure your rights are being monitored because you are not willing to put forth the effort to know and monitor those rights on your own. That is my view. I welcome your view. How is it that you see them destroying democracy?
If the government agreed then it would not happen. As such, we can rationally conclude the government is not in agreement with this. Perhaps you mean a specific branch of the government agrees or, worse, perhaps they are paying lip service and do not actually agree? Either way, it needs to stop but it is less energy to complain about it and hope that it changes. I submit that even a wall of text is not enough to effect change.
I did almost type "affect change" just to annoy people. I figured I would not even though I do mean to *also* affect change - as in change the way we work to change things because, frankly, complaining online has been a mainstay of the internet before the advent of the WWW and it has yet to have a meaningful impact and this seems quite unlikely to be different in the future.
That is great. Now give an effective solution and why you feel it would work. Be aware that I am not disagreeing with you on principle but I am approaching your argument with reason as my goal. I will respond in kind. I may learn something this way and, combined, we may even have a rational response.
I am deathly allergic to some stinging insect venoms - wasps and hornets and varied by strength of their venom and number of stings. I am not going to die from a bumblebee sting or a honeybee sting - neither will sting you unless you make them defensive and piss them off. Wasps and hornets are a fickle bunch typically and generally have stronger venom.
Having said that, I would probably shoot a wasp's nest if I thought it would be of any benefit. I doubt I really would. If I do not shoot them I know where they are and can avoid them. If I shoot them they will simply nest elsewhere. I can not conscionable eradicate them nor can I effectively eradicate them. They are, still, a low risk element in my ecological system even with my allergy. None of this prevents me from shooting them for amusement however and my morals do not entirely dismiss the idea but the karma hit would be massive unless I justified it away.
I knew there was a reason I liked you. Few understand their responsibilities (or are willing to accept them) as citizens. Fewer still understand the differences. This is the root of our problem, I think. I have tossed some gibberish into this thread. It will be ignored. Oh well... It is not frustrating to watch if you look at it right. It is actually just an example of animal behavior at both every scale including meta and it is absolutely humorous to witness if viewed in the right light. We expect fundamental behaviors without actually doing the work to verify those goals are met which is, also, a natural trait. We have to behave unnaturally in order to get an unnatural result and expecting anything different is, by definition, insanity.
Your Utopian idylls are trite. This does not mean I do not agree with you on principle. It means I think you would have to be a complete moron to expect anything different. This includes the lies, the act, and the continued action long after we have finished this conversation. Bitching about it online does you no good. Your apathy, laziness, and disregard for your social contract obligations are why they will keep doing what they are doing. You can blame it on them but, frankly, they are only doing what comes naturally and to think it would ever be different is to spit in the face of reality.
It is the courts, the judicial branch, of government that is most accessible (other than press which is speech but is something we ostensibly own ourselves) branch of the government. It is you duty to know your rights and your obligations. It is your job to monitor the courts and to use speech to inform others when there is a miscarriage of justice. We have failed in our duty to ensure we maintain this right because we have stopped viewing it as our obligation. Spend a day of your vacation. Go to the local district courthouse. Watch... Just watch. If you see something you do not like, speak about it. However, you must be vigilant and educated to do this. And no, most of you have no idea about how the law actually works which is why you should go to the courthouse.
It is you who should watch the enforcement arms of the government and not the other way around. It is your obligation to keep them in check. It is your, and mine, social failing that has allowed it to reach this point. Spend time at your district court - it starts there. Observe and learn. THEN speak. It starts there and grows out. This is simple but overlooked. Your rights have obligations. The government will do what it can - if we had the power we would not need the permission of the government. We are animals. We will do what we can to be in power. You, as a citizen of your country, are obligated to ensure that they do not - this is an individual responsibility. You can not rely on the press. You can not rely on other people. You, yourself, must make the effort.
I do not know where you live. I live in the United States. I do not care where you go on vacation. There will be a district court represented in every single state and in every single county in this whole country. The courts are generally open to the public. If seating is not enough then demand that they pipe the proceedings outside of the courtroom so that you can watch. You can even ask for permission to address the court as a citizen even if you are not a part of the proceedings - you may be ignored or held in contempt if you annoy them so do not do this unless you must. You have weapons, tools, probably in your country. Use them - you are obligated to.
Do not say that you are only an individual. That excuse does not hold water. It starts with you, the individual, upholding your end of the social contract which is to observe (and be educated) the practices of the government. Most people have no idea what evidence is (it is not proof), have no idea what the state must argue (and it is not proof), and have no idea the differences in preponderance of evidence that must be met by the state for a guilty conviction in a civil trial vs. the evidence that is needed for a criminal trial. It is not beyond all doubt - it is beyond all reasonable doubt. (Converse is that you are mostly likely to have committed the offense and the burden of proof is lowered for that in a civil trial.) It is your job to know these types of details and to watch and ensure that these standards are being met.
So... Do that. That is where it all starts and that is why your founding fathers have set it up this way. That is why courts are public. The judicial pillar of government is accessible to ensure you are getting the results that were intended by the spirit of the law. If you do not do this then you will have your rights trampled on. (There are way to change this. The most accessible is speech.) Spend some time doing your duty, learn, speak out after ensuring you know the law and the procedures. It is your end of your social contract. You do not get rights for nothing - you get them from ensuring they are not trampled on. You get them by insisting they are your rights by birth and by ensuring that the government knows who they work for. The government should be scared of the people, not the other way around.
I believe it should have been described more specifically as their way of creating indecision to help keep the knowledge of Chain Home a secret. The Germans did not know what the Chain Home system was actually doing. They bombed a couple (which were easily replaced and had redundancy built in for Home Office communications - a neat way of doing it) and then gave up which indicates that they really did not have any clue what the purpose was.
On the opposite end of the spectrum SAS crossed the channel to investigate some radio emitters. However, those were used for targeting and not for plane spotting.
Had the Germans known what the Chain Home system was they would have bombed the hell out of them, and likely been successful, which would have likely caused the War Over Europe to go differently.
It is hard to say, as all such intelligence things are, how well they can quantify the results. Current historians attribute it, as near as I can tell, to a simple intelligence oversight on the part of the Germans. They had the technology, they were even using it in their night fighters, but did not really use it on their end as well as they could have during the earliest stages of the bombing campaigns. What they had, to help them out at first, was a lot of people with communications gear who were able to spot aircraft invasions. Technology improved at a very rapid rate during that period. It seems some of the greatest technological advances come during times when we are trying our hardest to either hurt or be prepared to hurt another human being. If we put the same amount into learning how to not... Well...
So you have four cookies... One is a neutron emitter, one is a alpha...... (snip)
Ah... Radiation will alway be cookies to me. Me? Imma eat everyone of those bitches. Free cookies!
There was no time when /.was this great thing. It is not now, nor has it ever been, all things to everyone. There are still people here who do not read the article, spout ignorant opinions, and are offensive. I am glad to be one of them.
Anyhow, if you do not like it then there is an 'X' in the upper-left or upper-right corner of your browser. It is how you solve the problems of not liking a site. There is a community online, or the chance to make one, that will suit your needs. You may have to make it yourself, you can, and see if anyone likes your same sensibilities. That is entirely up to you. What is not up to you is to determine how, what, or if an online community should change.
I have been told that Digg is now good again. I have not verified this and it is surely subjective.
The term "liberal" is pretty situational. It is, at its root, those who want change. Conservatives want to keep things the same. The two terms are more subjective and should not be applied to a single party. Doing so is facile at best and harmful at worst. The divide that we have is a sideshow. You know what to do. You just have apathy, laziness, and fear that keep you from fixing it.
Very very few homosexuals, let's expand to 'alternative sexual lifestyle' people, actually hate straight people due to their normative sexual preferences. There are some but there are fruitcakes of all types, they are people too and we people are batshit crazy... Citation? Look around.
I am a straight guy and one of the most comfortable social environments I have found has been amongst those people. So, in the hope of actually giving you something to think about, "Go get drunk with a fag." Really...
That is what they claimed in the first article about this. It was in the summary as I recall. I doubt I actually RTFA. However, that was the people trying to sell this fake stuff so who knows if they are telling the truth?
You know, NASA is not just handing this money to them, right?
I am pretty sure that the money had some conditions with it as well. That may not make it right but let us not pretend that NASA is not getting something for its money.
That being said, how much did it cost last time in inflated dollars? I do not know. I think that may be a good metric to start with and then realize what we may get from this. Then decide if you support it or not. You do not even have to justify it. Just do not like it.
Slipstick even. Now you know why I do not usually smoke much pot.
You'll pry my dispstick from my cold dead hands!
I do not spend my mod points. Not very often and not in a long time. I just do not give a shit. Browse at -1. Filter the trash in your head.
You do not want to know about all these fish I have eaten. I probably should be dead I suppose. Meh... It has been a hell of a ride so far. Keep in mind I am not suggesting one ingest this. However, I managed. My kids are pretty normal but, I mean, come on? I am their dad, they can not be that normal. Still though. They are not diagnosed with anything.