baltoo

    DH2. Responding to Tone.

Although I guess the thing I read earlier might well be wong, I'm still not that convinced that colors are that gender based by default.

That the roles are globally reversed now could very well be indicative of a newish cultural shift that has nothing to do with nature, genes or suchlike.

That person will guide you throughout the day while you go out and buy the stuff society at large would like to see you wear. End the day with a visit to a, from them, suggested barber and you're set.

Not that URI:s are that great for showing to humans, but if we added some visualizations template plug-in system for parts of it (similar to how many web servers map URLs to renderings of data resources).

Or is this kinda what you mean with templates?

To get away from toe injuries I've looked at Terra Plana's Evo shoes (http://www.terraplana.com/evo-p-1263.html?colour=271).

They look like something that might be the thing. But I have not so far actually tested them.

If you're going to run more trail-running or the like then perhaps a pair of huaraches might be something for you (http://barefootted.com/shop/).

For me they have been a mixed blessing. I tend to sweat a lot from the feet and thus the airiness of the sandals are really good for me. But it's been hard to learn how to properly string them on longer runs and small mistakes makes it easy for my feet to get blisters.

Exposure to phenomena like "kids" is rather abundant in most societies. For parents as well as non-parents. Observation and analysis about how those phenomena processes seem to be behave can even sometimes be made more accurate by those not emotionally bound up in the here and now.

I believe there is no argumentative authority arising from the fact that one is or is not a parent.

To settle what might be an authority issue for you: I don't know about jdietrich, but I have kids and I mostly agree with him.

This truly seems to cost both aggravation and time - but perhaps only for the first time. I'd hazard a guess that only a few people, of each Ryanair flight, are rookies. Most people, when faced with harsh measures, really do learn quickly. Perhaps this is, overall and long-term, a cost efficient way to do business.

While of course I'm biased and base my observations upon the plural of anecdote, I still find this observation to hold true.

I could of course hazard some kind of guess to why, but more interestingly, I think, would be if there was any kind of non-anecdotal data covering this.

Has anyone heard/read about any evidence for or against this?

Personally I'm an opera fan, so I haven't tried getting it to work but a quick search brought up: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/51000, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12625 and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11551 as plug-is. As for blocking cookies there are several options.

(At least with regards to the language for the UI and search results. I don't know if advertising is adjusted.)

Sexual preferences are pretty strong drivers and combined with periods of harsh environments (e.g. where either of the sexes die off early in life) can create really fast evolution.

Over-the-top, to me, implies a taking something to-the-extreme-and-then-some, and it's in this latter phase of and-then-some where the essence of over-the-top-ness is happening, because it requires something new to happen. Making a building just more tall isn't any "new" it's "only" much/more/most/greater/grander of the thing that's already there.

Not that scyscrapers aren't impressive or anything and they are new in the sense that such thing haven't always been around.

To me, Pulp fiction has something of over-the-top-ness, but Rambo never had.

Also, it the project replaced one that had tried to make something work for even longer, without producing anything working at all.

Also, I remember it that Kent Beck thought the projects ending had nothing to do with the performance of it.

- Edward's law

The problem, I think, is precisely the one you highlight:

> If only more people dared to put up servers

"Society" can make it so that it's "dangerous" (for given values) and, more importantly, uninteresting (for the masses) to use the new tech, and thus it remains a non-solved problem, which could herald a bleaker future.

Presented with partially unknowns about historical events one can use different approaches to decide how to proceed, but when talking about law, most things revolve specifically not about what's probable, but what actually happened. There is no "probable". Isn't that the main point of the article?

It's quite easy, from a law perspective, to decide what to do when no sure about what actually happened: let the accused go.

For most of us, though, this is not the type of answer we're after, and that's one of the things the article is trying to make us understand: our perspectives are different.

Neither perspective is inherently inferiour.