Seed patent holders have previously, successfully, sued farmers who inadvertantly grew patented plants they did not intentionally plant, but arrived on their property through natural means.

The point here is, some farmers will be 'forced' to plant golden rice by circumstance, not intention. Are they liable for that, or not? In the US and Canada, historically, they have been.

Beards are pretty popular these days, as is the 'stubbley' look.

Your explaining the difference but not explaining why it makes a difference.

To matters of gun regulation, of safety in public spaces, of trauma to the affected, of national reputation (pick any one, or all, or something else) why does the intent change anything?

I'll start off: To have the intention to mass-murder purely for the sake of mass murder could be worth isolating and studying because that is a specific and extreme psychological problem worth solving. However, not all mass killings (with intent, for your sake) will have that psychological trigger at root. A religious or racial extremist, for example, is different than a disaffected teenager.

In this circumstance, intent is interesting if one is interested in those other things (psychological issues in American youth, the spread of religious and racial extremism), but ultimately are secondary issues when it comes to measuring gun violence. A mass stabbing by a racial extremist, or a teenager blowing up their high school with fertilizer would still need to be measured.

You are complaining about this organization's yardstick, but I don't hear a compelling alternative from you for this specific measure. You are saying they should be measuring a totally different thing, which is arguably irrelevant to this measure.

A strong second for Weawow. What a great weather app.

Where is the line?

We interact with hundreds if not thousands of chemicals in every ordinary act of life. This is not just unavoidable, it's normal and natural, and has been going on for centuries if not millenia.

Are you proposing we stop cooking food (which results in chemical alterations of the underlying food). What about soap?

You have a point, but you've oversimplified it and taken it to an extreme where it's no longer a sound or balanced idea.

But this already isn't true. Even if I could afford it, I can't buy an F16, anthrax or a nuclear warhead. So, isn't this just about where the line is being drawn? The line itself both already exists and doesn't seem to be contested.

Current Agha Khan founded the Agha Khan Development Network which has done a fair amount of good in the developing world.

The apple was never whole.... it was simply tightly grouped and a subgroup has been severed from another

Thanks! This article really clears up a lot of the details that help the simulation make sense.

Also, in this simulation are the customers arriving in equally spaced intervals or is random arrival time within the bounds assumed?

I love this sentiment, and it can be true, but it also creates this idea that 'heart' alone has a high bearing on whether or not a product of any kind (book, film, statue, game) will be successful in its market ambitions.

It doesn't always correlate. I would argue if often doesn't correlate. Any indie film or game fest is chock full of projects with a ton of heart. Few of them graduate to success in the market place.

I'm not saying heart is a bad thing. It's a damn great thing. But strong business fundamentals are a good thing too. And sometimes, you also just need that extra bit of luck or uncontrollable virality too. To find success, you stack the deck with as many good plays as you can, and heart is one of them.

Success is not a recipe, and if it was, everybody would be doing it...

I've heard them referred to as Hypnic Jerks.