brettbh

DST.

A Swedish couple in search of the isle of Capri drove to Carpi, an industrial town in northern Italy, because they misspelt the name in their car's GPS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8173308.stm

A Swedish couple in search of the isle of Capri drove to Carpi, an industrial town in northern Italy, because they misspelt the name in their car's GPS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8173308.stm

A Swedish couple in search of the isle of Capri drove to Carpi, an industrial town in northern Italy, because they misspelt the name in their car's GPS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8173308.stm

DST.

Greta could also die if she decided to have the baby (in fact, an abortion is probably safer than pregnancy), but that's really not the point. Greta can choose whether to be a mother; shouldn't Simon be able to choose whether to be a father? I'm not suggesting that Simon should be able to force Greta into having an abortion - simply that he be able to opt out of being the child's father in the eyes of the law.

What is "abstinence" anyway? Isn't it something that makes the heart grow fonder? Or some form of anise-flavored liquor?

The majority of people will probably consider reducing paper consumption and/or using recycled paper as an environmentally-friendly option. But is it? According to Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University:

"Our paper recycling programs cost time and money and do little to protect first-growth woodlands and rain forests. The trees used by paper mills are a renewable resource. When people use more paper, suppliers plant more trees. If we want bigger commercial forests, then we should use more paper not less. Our policies should directly protect important wildlife habitats, not try to reduce our demand for paper."

Hmmm. This argument is somewhat too simplistic as it does not take into account energy used to make the paper, the environmental impact of printing materials (ink and cartridges), etc., etc. - but he does nonetheless make a valid point. In an ideal world, commercialization would certainly not be the best method of protecting our woodlands. But we do not live in an ideal world and we are losing woodland at an alarming rate. So, is this the most viable method of protecting woodland spaces at this point in time? Should people be encouraged to drop the "Please think about the environment before printing this email"? Should we look to increase our consumption of paper from renewable sources in the hope that this will result in our woodland areas expanding rather than shrinking.

Thoughts?

But should you? If women have the right to opt out of motherhood, why shouldn't men have the right to opt out of fatherhood?

People take Penn/Teller seriously? Really? Does the US not have any real investigative journalists?

I've always thought that tubbies should be made to pay a premium for public transportation. I mean, if I have to pay extra to get my excess baggage onto a flight, why shouldn't they?

$$$$s probably!

The cost is actually a good thing as it should act as an obstacle to scammers. The downside is, as you pointed out, the confusion that it will cause - and that will actually help scammers!

From another post:

"The population is growing at a rate of 1.5 million per week. To put that number in perspective, in order to house all those people in a single place you'd need to build a city the size of Phoenix each and every week, or a city the size of New York every 5 weeks. Before the end of next month, the world's population will have increased by more than the current population of Sweden. Before the end of the year, it will have increased by more than the current population of the UK. Before the end of 2013, it will have increased by more than the current population of the US."

>>The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.<<

But these are (rapidly) developing countries and it would a mistake to assume that their emissions will not increase substantially over the coming years.

Population increase in undoubtedly one of the most serious challenges - possibly the most serious challenge - facing the planet.

Actually, it has little to do with the judges:

Under federal law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement but the law allows the jury to raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful. The jury decided on $80,000 per song.

While most people would probably agree that the RIAA is entitled to protect the interests of its artists, hitting (mainly) kids whith such extreme penalties seems exceptionally unfair and nonsensical.

Religion is cetainly a wonderful thing, isn't it.