Interesting. A first-person shooter is the view from the perspective of the shooter. A third person shooter is the view from a neutral party - a camera watching the action.

A second-person shooter would be from the viewpoint of those being shot by the protagonist.

A telepathic assassin. You read the mind(s) of your target(s), and somehow use their eyes to kill them.

Corn cares not from whence the shit posts

FTFY. “Whence” means “from what origin”.

Ninety percent of the time it has no bearing on anything the doctor will be doing

I would tend to agree with you if that were the case. But, I would ask you to quantify your claim.

According to ACEP, 48 in 100 ER patients will undergo simple radiograph procedures (some form of X-rays), while 27 in 100 will undergo CT imaging. Both pose significant dangers to a fetus, if present.

Based on that data, at least 48% to 75% of the time, the question does, indeed, have bearing on something the doctor will be doing. Is that sufficiently high enough to prioritize determining whether there is a second patient in the room?

There’s plenty of time later on in the exam

You’re assuming that she’s not going to quickly lose consciousness due to shock or blood loss. That is not a particularly safe assumption.

I would say this is not universal. For some, the written word is the native “tongue”, conveying the actual, intended meaning. The written word allows the speaker the opportunity to evaluate and revise their language to match their intent, and the listener the opportunity to re-evaluate previously transmitted thoughts.

The oral variant is dependent on the real-time aptitude of the speaker to articulate their thoughts and message, and for the listener to extract that meaning from the same. For those of us handicapped in these traits, the spoken word is the poor facsimile for actual (written) communication.

I think “whence” is a near-perfect example. “Whence” means “from what origin”.

The word is used nearly exclusively in the phrase “from whence it came”, or “from (from what origin) it came”

once

Uh huh.

“taint” is from " 't ain’t dick, 't ain’t asshole". As the proper spot to press is, in fact, the very base of the “dick”, 't ain’t taint.

The proper nomenclature for the anterior perineum is actually “gooch”.

What he wants is the focus on “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in the 14th amendment. He isn’t after birthright citizenship. He wants formal recognition that certain people are not owed constitutional protections.

Immediately, he wants “immigrants” to be in the same category as “enemy combatants”, whose rights and privileges are defined by international treaty, rather than recognized by the constitution.

This particular manner of death is one in a trillion. The odds that these three were going to die in a car together was quite a bit closer to parity.

I would call that “fraud”. In declaring themselves “gynecologists”, they are effectively advertising that they are qualified and willing to perform routine gynecological procedures. Their refusal to do so constitutes a fraud on patients seeking such services.

“Neonatology”, “Histology”, “Reproductive physiology” and “Reproductive biology” are comparable specialty fields wherein the practitioner would not be expected to perform elective abortions.

Additionally, if they would prefer to call themselves “general practitioners”, I would be far more lenient in allowing them to define their own scope of practice.

Fair Ok

FTFY.

I’m a gynecologist. My religion says I can’t do an abortion.

I would say that if “you” won’t perform an abortion, “you” are not actually a gynecologist. Go study and practice urology, or proctology, or gastroenterology, or oncology, or neurology, or cardiology, or dermatology, or any other field where “you” will not be called upon to perform a simple, routine procedure.

Jon Stewart, 2028.

The problem with Reagan and Trump isn’t that they were actors. The problem is that they were complete pieces of shit long before they were elected.

Actor-presidents have demonstrated a natural propensity for revolutionary disruption of entrenched attitudes. Reagan completely fucked over economic policy; Trump is completely fucking over the fundamental concept of democracy.

Imagine that same degree of revolutionary disruption moving us toward egalitarianism rather than corpo-fascism.

Lawmakers should be pilloried.

The crank stations? Or their users?

At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.

This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.

Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.

Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this

You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.

You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.

Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.

And CO2 is a fucking gas

Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.

But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking

I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.

You can bury solid biofuel,

Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.

Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.

Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.

Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.

Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.

What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?

My old PC locks up every 4 to 48 hours. It would make a terrible NAS.