As I see it, the phrase "to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service" is the key bit. If they did anything weird with your files, this is how you would hang them. It would depend on exactly how they define the Service (which I assume is defined somewhere else in the terms, probably more loosely than the…

You could feasibly oxidize all the metal away if you had a steady supply of pure O2. A strong oxidizing agent such as a permanganate salt would also be awesome.

As far as I know, this is true, since cloning has been doable without involving telomerase in any way. However, depending on what cells you start with, you may have a pretty young cell anyway. For example, an early oocyte precursor has only divided a few times.

I always mash Command+T to get the new tab and just type my URL from there. I guess that wouldn't work if you wanted to open in the background. If I want to go back to where I was, I can always Command+Option+arrows to get back (or the 3-finger swipe if you have multitouch and the extension for it). It's uncommon for…

In my reading Tetsuo claims that Faxmonkey is making some statement that one viewpoint is somehow more representative than another: Hence, in his next sentence, Tetsuo attempts to refute that statement by saying there "is no 'representative'". So I stand by my claim of faulty logic.

Someone please photoshop a huge joint into this guy's right hand, please. It should have been done a few minutes after the post went up, for Christ's sake.

Okay, time for a logic lesson: Faxmonkey saying that the statement did not represent all Americans is not the same as saying the opposite statement is representative of all Americans.

@SkipErnst I totally agree with this take on it. 99% of what they find in these documents will not get the cops in trouble, no matter how hateful it is. It's free speech. One of the prices we pay for free speech is that idiots and bigots get to have free speech, too. That's not a big price to pay when you think about…

To me, one of the biggest take home points of the original article is that it was poorly written. If a series of fairly smart internet commenters (including probably some science/math types as well as financial professionals) can't figure out exactly what the point was, then what good is the article to the layperson…

There's a moment there about two-thirds through where he's hanging out close to the edge and a guardrail comes out of nowhere and almost kills him. I felt a pretty big scare even though I knew he would be all right.

You're right, it still doesn't make sense. Paying off your debt only improves your cash flow once you're finished. It actually weakens your cash flow while you're paying off, and the faster you do so, the worse your cash flow will be. Long term, of course, paying off sooner makes sense because mathematically you end…

This made no sense to me, and so I read the full article, and it still didn't make sense. The article's title makes some sort of reference to paying off LOW interest debts, but then in the body of the article, all it does is talk about cash flow and how eliminating your debt will increase your cash on hand.