rangerx

I've worked with octopus too, in the mid eighties. We were doing live capture, tagging, release and recapture recording growth rates. Retained captures recovered upwards 25% of their food as body weight. We'd use a soap bottle with a small amount of bleach to cause the animal to leave the den, but recaptured octopuses didn't like that, instead willingly volunteered for capture, seemingly knowing they'd be re-released following weight and measurement data collection. I have a natural pearl collected from an octopus, the only known one from that species of mollusk.

Some satellites are highly elliptical (as opposed to low earth orbit or geosynchronous) They may appear as moving during twilight with only a few degrees of variation to the observer over longer periods of time.

Psychological projection, false equivilence, whataboutism etc., especially in politics fall under the broader term: Gaslighting

To that end, I agree. I have no love for marketing boards. I haven't compared the price to milk elsewhere, but it doesn't seem expensive either for a fresh, healthy product. It's less than two bucks CDN per liter. Imported cheeses are expensive... really expensive though. That's not exclusive to America either. Pretty much every country does that for booze. Funny nobody mentions the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is the largest monopoly in the world. The single greatest international purchaser of spirits. So we play dirty pool with milk, we can change that. especially since it's come to light. It pales to the way America plays dirty pool with softwood lumber, which has a profoundly larger effect. Will America change that? I doubt it. Americans will always fight with Americans over softwood and blame Canada for it. It's not just beside the point, it's egregious, really. Pretty much all countries protect something under the guise of nationalism, so singling out Canada for milk without addressing the bigger issue is patently unfair and shows bad faith in demanding re-negotiation. America had it's way with our forests for the pulp and paper industry too for decades and left us holding the bag with the pollution and ghost towns when they laid everyone off and ran away. Same thing goes for iron ore and other mines, which have chronic containment or toxic issues to this day. Though admittedly Noranda does not have a favorable reputation in the US, again it's small on the big scale of things. Like I say, NAFTA has been a tit for tat. We overlook one thing, America another and that's how a deal gets made. Economic, not political balance. A trade war (no less further deregulation) is a race to the bottom for pollution and a loss to sustainability and public health/spaces. Each of us have strengths and weaknesses. Canada has more trees, so we produce more wood. America has more people, so they manufacture more goods. If trade means going one on one for each and every product, we'd be doing without or paying a lot for each other's products. So in the figurative sense of milk and the OP, just because Trump was right to point to a typo is wrong to discard the book.

Milk is a terrible example for initiating a trade war. Canadians don't use growth hormones (bovine somatotropin). It's use in Canada is illegal. Even if trade was on par, it's widely not desirable. I live on Vancouver Island, which has world class fresh milk. I wouldn't drink American milk or eat cheese products, even if it was cheaper. The milk example also demonstrates the American double standard on subsidies. American agriculture is highly subsidized. Far more than Canada. American beef is also highly subsidized. A lot of public land is used for ranching yet, America punishes Canadian softwood lumber for being harvested from public land. NAFTA resolved a lot of those issues by balancing one for other, which takes extensive dialog, economic consideration and pollution control. Americans catch Canadian fish and Canadians catch American fish. The International Salmon Agreement has been in place for decades and works reasonably well. There's nothing to be re-negotiated, so trashing the deal is absurd, if not detrimental to the entire industry. Thing is, tariffs on wood (for example) only drive up the cost of housing starts, which is the single most important financial investment for the middle class. Perhaps we'll dam the Columbia River and cut off Washington and Oregon, much like America dammed the Colorado from Mexico. We'll also bump the cost of bottled water. We have zero demand for American water. Oil. We forego refining it to favor (and pass off pollution) to Texas, who are better equipped and willing to deal with it. Both sides of the border were okay with that, but hey... we'll just refine it ourselves and sell it domestically or overseas. So much for America's motivation toward energy independence. Movies, television and other media. We can pull that plug, but I doubt Canadians would want that, but we can apply additional carrier costs for networks, Netflix and impose greater Canadian content laws, which would invariably revitalize the industry in Canada. A lot of pharmaceuticals are manufactured in Canada. A trade war in that would greatly affect seniors and the disabled in both countries. The Auto Pact of 1965 was trashed in 2001. It was designed to keep cars in North America, but Canadian production wasn't efficient and we ran a trade deficit, so America nixed it. Since then, the industry took a dive in America, because imports were cheaper and America didn't embrace technology. Canadian airlines largely fly Boeing aircraft, yet Trump applied a 300% tariff on Bombardier Canada in the USA (yet again a double-standard, to counter the milk argument). Okay, fine, we won't buy your planes anymore, we'll build our own or buy Airbus. America cannot win a trade war.

Canada always played second fiddle to America. Now they don't. Now Canada has taken the lead on climate change trade. Trudeau is not afraid to stand up to Trump. That's a good thing.

For the sake of the discussion, lets say you were called that over something you said on this forum. Would you be offended as opposed to introspective, adamant or indifferent?

If Roseanne was contrite about her history of racist rants and sincere in her apology, then sure. The Ambien thing was outrageous, if not laughable. Roseanne a serial racist. It's a stretch to call Sam B. a sexist based on single incident. Have you or anyone you know ever been called a prick or a dick? Do you accuse them of sexism or hate speak too?

Sam B. apologized, profusely and sincerely. Does that not account for anything?

1- No, it's a false equivalence Republicans are always resorting to. ( I don't actually think like that, insomuch as reacted accordingly) Often enough, though. 2- Some are, but not in the absence of story line writing itself in an endless stream of instances. They had the right to fire her, but didn't. They upheld both rights. She apologized and was undoubtedly put on notice. 3- It was distasteful, rude and clearly uncalled for even in a comedic sense, but nowhere near the level of a racist rant, no less directed a person supposedly out of the blue and dubiously as a joke. (see #1) 4- Of course, but exactly what was hateful in Sam Bee's dialog? It's the double standard liberals are always complaining about. It was tactless joke. If anything it's not so much the C-word as it was about the kids. The kids should always be off limits, even indirectly. They both ought to have known better.

Despite mounting evidence, guilty pleas and indictments, the term "witch hunt" rolls off Trump's tongue in nearly every breath and through his fingers on every tweet. Then in the absence of evidence, accuses the FBI of spying for political purposes and called for an investigation into his investigators. The epitome of double standards and outright malice aside, it's tantamount to a witch hunt.

Closer to shore, does not necessarily mean smaller waves. In fact, as water becomes shallow, the energy of the "swell" amplifies and creates breaking waves. Long lines, cables or ropes will undoubtedly impede vessel traffic. Then there is the issue of fouling. The ocean is not free from natural debris such as kelp, grasses, logs and other flotsam. It only takes a month or two for any object in the marine environment to foul with barnacles and tunicates. The longer the exposure, the heavier floating objects become. Inshore would be a better solution. It's often calmer and warmer water. There are less dynamic forces straining the system and it would be easier to recover even if lost or re-positioned following storms. In which case, lakes would be more suitable, especially without the need for desalinating water. Keep thinking though, you've touched an astute topic. Good luck with your project!

It's called Sequential hermaphroditism. It is not exclusive to amphibians, but to fishes, mollusks, corals and plants as well.

The saddest part being, most of what is discussed here is largely inconsequential on the grand scale of things. It's merely an opportunity to express individual opinions on specific topics that we may learn something from other's experiences or wisdom. Five minutes on Google or employing a tactic from the neocon playbook, then doubling down on the original statement by insisting how right they are and how wrong everyone else is neither experience, nor wise. It gives credence to the saying: I wish I was young again, when I knew everything.

Exactly. It's my assertion he's deliberately being misleading to forward his narratives. One that suggests we all want to take away their guns, another that muddies waters and yet another to singularly dismiss others from the discussion. Yet his stance others being misleading is unassailable. Immediately defaulting to "quote me where I said that" on the same pages where he said it, isn't discussion. It's belligerence. No wonder the discussion spirals downward from there.

Now you've resorted to removing me from the discussion, again. That one fails. try another angle, spin or off topic comment.

Other than just wanting to take your guns, right? I don't need to quote, when you just keep repeating yourself.

Why would I do that, when all you'll do is spin it into something else to detract from the underlying issue? Which is my entire point. This is a thread about arming teachers with guns, not your twisting things into something they're not.

It's the narrative you've been painting all along. As I said... in other words.

Yes, it sounds like negligent gun handling to me, irrespective of where it was left. A school is among the worse places for that to happen, but apparently it's taboo to discuss that. I'm sure they're perfectly fine with "OMG they want to take our guns" comments after even the smallest of measure of gun control is discussed though. That's where we are now in this discussion. Misleading away from negligence into a "you all just want to take our guns" inference in other words.

Much like giving tax breaks to the richest people to buy back stock and artificially inflate stock prices then calling it a benefit to the middle class. But that's a topic for another thread.

A plane can land with no engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Losing an engine isn't isn't anything new. In fact most multiple engine aircraft are designed to work around this problem. All aircraft have a distance/elevation ratio, so the crew will usually be able calculate landing spots. The more altitude a plane has, the further/longer it may fly. The worst possible time to lose an engine is shortly after takeoff, when all the power is needed. If the power is halved, the plane may fall below it's designed aeronautic stall speed.

Trump "loves" Wikileaks, but calls leakers (like Comey) criminals, then pardons a convicted leaker who compromised an undercover operative/analyst. Trump praised Comey for interfering with the election, then derides Comey for interfering with the election, all the while denying it had any effect on the outcome. Still, he outwardly maintains that millions of nonexistent illegals conspired to deny him the popular vote. Duplicity at it's height, morality in the gutter. I dare not say depth, because I'm certain he's got a lot more stooping to do yet. Trump and Comey are both lying pieces of shit. At least Comey has a semblance of concession (albeit self serving, if not unapologetic). It's a sad day when one picks and chooses the best or worst liar to bolster their argument.

Lower temperature and greater solubility of medicinal components. The distillate can be recycled and the remaining concentration is readily mixed into other oils.

Have you tried ethanol?