...cause' good-God, does eating raw grubs suck.

Well of course - the deep pockets that fund the NRA see this as competition.

I know there are already laws covering building of zipguns. It's not clear to me yet if those laws apply here. One would think most judges would apply the law regardless of the means of construction.

Making zipguns is illegal most places already. I'm not clear if the law applies to this or not; I'm guessing a prosecutor who wanted to make the case would make it stick.

If you're shopping around, I've been quite happy with dorco. I've been using their 3 blade system for awhile and found it comparable with the Mach 3 I used to use, except in price. Also, once you order from them they occasionally send you further discounts, increasing the price differential even further.

I was struck by the fact that the movies I like the least had the best posters.

Here's the Kirk half of that face.

Did no one tell them the glow-y bit is supposed to go in the other guy?

I'm in the tail end of the tail end of Gen X, but I've always been annoyed by Gen X's pretense of disaffected cynicism. While Millennials seem to avoid the whole disaffected shtick, it's a little heart breaking to watch the cynicism set in.

Apparently Amanda didn't read the Onion before her trip abroad.

There are a variety of flavors of crazy; sometimes you get multiple kinds in the same package!

My guess is the prosecutor's crazy wouldn't have fixated on Knox had she not been attractive.

I'm amused that everyone is referencing her to The Tudors, but every time I see her I always think, "That's the girl who sexually harassed Captain America!"

That can be generalized to damn near any group, Jezebel is no worse than the rest of humanity in that regard - confirmation bias is what we do.

A face made for radio, if ever there was one.

If the effect hasn't been demonstrated in women it would be a mistake to say "people are less likely to display a bias", as that stretches the conclusion way to far. As it is I wonder if the researchers made too broad a conclusion based on (what sounds like from the article) a rather limited study.

I'm not clear why the justification is super-weak, if the statement is based on a well founded, reviewed, and published behavioral experiment. Can you expound on your objection?

I know he hated that wig, but he totally worked it.

Which is rather hilarious considering all Scotsmen wore pants before the 16th century, and even then the kilt was a symbol of poverty. It went from a symbol of contempt to a symbol of national pride.

As philosophers get deeper into their study they become less certain about everything, because skepticism fundamentally undermines not only observations but also logical argument.