zapatos

Citation?

Of course it is. It's in the rule book.

Just so I'm clear, you think it would be easier to get from Finland to Africa after society collapses, than it is now? Can you describe how you might take that trip?

Bruce Lee had the same idea, which is a part of Jeet Kune Do. If your opponent moves toward you with his fist, you strike his fist. If he moves toward you with a kick, you strike his foot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do

By what mechanism are you able to aim your laser accurately enough to make it shine on these objects at some significant distance? I'm wondering if they are indeed reacting to the laser of if perhaps the optics are simply making it appear that the objects are moving in response.

Looks like God's omniscience only extends so far, otherwise he would have put a stop to those evil people before they caused any damage at all. Seems more likely that God was asleep at the wheel and screwed up by letting that batch be born in the first place. Then instead of using his power to change their hearts for good to make up for their evil deeds, he was embarrassed that people would be constantly reminded of his mistake by their presence so he just said 'fuck it' and cut his losses.

In many ways plastics are a real boon. Inexpensive, smaller, lighter, cheaper to transport with less fossil fuel burned. I'm sure we could use less but it is also important to weigh the many benefits of plastic containers when looking for changes.

Now that we are truly able to level the playing field I am anxious to begin my new career as a heavyweight boxer!

That's sort of fundamental to competition.

Unfortunately that seems to be true. And you can only bang your head against the wall so many times before you realize the wall is not going to collapse.

I suspect for some people it feels unfair when after giving a lengthy explanation they've spent ages working on, they get a response that sounds like "you are wrong because of 'x', here is a link that explains things for you." They've already given this a lot of thought and obviously think they already understand. Most of the responses people here give focus on pointing out the errors with a speculation, and rightly so. But if you want to address the issue of appearing to reject an idea 'out of hand', it would be wise to stop telling them they are wrong, and present it in such a way that they arrive at the conclusion they are wrong all by themselves. Get them to accept the logic/evidence/math that is the foundation of the valid theory we are defending while leaving out the section where their flaw resides. If presented well, when you ask them to fill in the missing section, there will only be one possibility (the right one). My analogy is painting a picture for them while leaving out one section. When they look at the painting you want them to say "ah, obviously that section should be filled with the woman's face, not a pustulating boil as I previously suspected".

People refer to their boats, ongoing projects, and cars as he/she. I'm not sure that trying to get everyone to use gender pronouns the exact same way is going to be a successful endeavor.

Companies are learning how to compete with Amazon. I've found that every time I find an item from Amazon I need that is also at Home Depot, Home Depot has it for the exact same price, with free delivery. If a company has a successful business model, there will always be another company who will make moves to share in that profitable market. I imagine that Amazon's lead will level out after a time.

I would say that is completely up to the lawmakers. If they want to spur growth and liability laws are inhibiting manufacturers, they will just change the laws. Well, perhaps if you are reckless, but a death doesn't necessarily mean there will be jail time.

Tsinghua University, National University of Singapore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Thanks!

Russia is not a single-nation country? The USSR has not been around for almost 30 years.

You see what you want to see, not what is in front of you. Enjoy.

Impressive for you and me? Maybe. Impressive for someone divine? For God's sake my friend, he either can't do math or he doesn't check his work. Very sloppy if you ask me.

You would think if he were divine, he could have managed to make it exactly 1000 earth days.

I suspect you are not long for this site.

Oh yeah, that was your actual question, wasn't it. Yes, that was about the age. However, you don't have to worry about starting too soon because the lessons are short and if they aren't ready for it, they'll simply give you a blank stare then ask if they can have a giraffe.

I taught my kids about sex and money in the same way and about the same time. I used every day examples to educate them, talking at the level they would understand. Most lessons were short and sweet, but it also gave them the opportunity to ask questions. I also felt that if they asked a question, then I should answer it, no matter what it was. When I would get cash at an ATM I would tell them how when I went to work my boss gave me money (which was just a bunch of numbers), then at the ATM if I showed them my card they would give me some money and take away some of my numbers. Buying a sandwich for a guy outside the Subway shop was a good way to talk about charity. I also asked them a lot of questions. Would you loan your friend Tony some money? Why not? What if he promised to give you twice as much back? Now risk and reward is covered. Same similar lessons on credit cards, loans, paying bills, retirement, etc. Kids are exposed to financial situations every day so it is easy to start the conversation. I skipped the age old lesson we're always told do with kids, about having them save 20% of their allowance, give 10% to charity, etc. I found it to be contrived. EDIT: My parents did no prepare me for how the financial world works (or sex for that matter). I read a book called Making the Most of Your Money by Jane Bryant Quinn. It is comprehensive and made a huge difference for me. Both my boys received a copy at the appropriate time. https://www.amazon.com/Making-Most-Money-Bryant-Quinn/dp/0684811766

So the link you provide to support your assertion regarding the change in intelligence over millions of years does not mention intelligence at all. Two questions on that: 1. How do you know they don't mention intelligence change because they are taking for granted there was none? Perhaps they don't mention it because there is no data available that would allow them to comment on intelligence in a 34 million old animal. 2. Do scientists typically "take things for granted"? Let me try a similar argument regarding emotions and you tell me if it sounds reasonable. Following is a link to support my assertion that emotions in humans have not changed since primates diverged from other mammals 85 million years ago. if you search the page that I linked for emotions, you won't find the word emotions at all. That's because they take it for granted that no signs of evolution of emotions will be observable. There are lots of developments covered, but emotions is not one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Where did I shift the goalposts?