Hahahahaha... ^_^

I'm considering biking there for spring break (in a week). Are there leaves on the trees yet, or is it still brown-grey weather?

Thanks!

I'm 18 and I've been dating this girl for three months now... we were friends for a year before that, and I've never been very good with girls so this is my first serious relationship. I like her, we have a lot of fun all the time and I really trust her a lot.

She's more experienced than I am and she's not a virgin, so we're kind of waiting on my end for when I want to go all the way. Not that she wanted to go right away or anything, but it wont be her first time. We've done lots of stuff, some of it pretty close to sex (finger, oral, etc, lots but just never penetration).

I just don't know if we're ready. I knew when we weren't ready, but now we're getting a lot closer and she's almost my best friend, and I am just not sure. I don't want to mess it up, but at the same time I feel like this COULD be a good time. We've definitely wanted to for a long time haha. Do you ever just "know" when the time is right, or do you just gamble and see what happens?

I'm 18 and I've been dating this girl for three months now... we were friends for a year before that, and I've never been very good with girls so this is my first serious relationship. I like her, we have a lot of fun all the time and I really trust her a lot.

She's more experienced than I am and she's not a virgin, so we're kind of waiting on my end for when I want to go all the way. Not that she wanted to go right away or anything, but it wont be her first time. We've done lots of stuff, some of it pretty close to sex (finger, oral, etc, lots but just never penetration).

I just don't know if we're ready. I knew when we weren't ready, but now we're getting a lot closer and she's almost my best friend, and I am just not sure. I don't want to mess it up, but at the same time I feel like this COULD be a good time. We've definitely wanted to for a long time haha. Do you ever just "know" when the time is right, or do you just gamble and see what happens?

Could DNA/RNA probes be made to bind to the target DNA/RNA sequences even if the sample hasn't been fixed? Much like antibodies will still bind in vivo.

I'm not concerned with the imaging - I realize that getting an image in vivo with the DNA/RNA probe fluorescence might not give a good picture at all, but all I'm wondering is, WILL the probe actually bind, or do you need to fix and treat the specimen for the probe to bind at all?

Thanks!

Could DNA/RNA probes be made to bind to the target DNA/RNA sequences even if the sample hasn't been fixed? Much like antibodies will still bind in vivo.

I'm not concerned with the imaging - I realize that getting an image in vivo with the DNA/RNA probe fluorescence might not give a good picture at all, but all I'm wondering is, WILL the probe actually bind, or do you need to fix and treat the specimen for the probe to bind at all?

Thanks!

... for people who own a business? Can't congress do that? The economic damage could be minimized by, say, adding a break for those who employ fewer than a certain number of employees (to make sure they really are a "small" business), etc.

Or is there some reason that congress can't pass a law that specific?

... or more? Or is there something in the constitution that wouldn't allow this?

If it is possible, why has nobody tried it? It seems like a more effective method of taxation than sweeping broad taxes that only look at pure income. I mean income really doesn't say everything about your wealth or your ability to pay taxes and how much you contribute to the economy.

... or more? Or is there something in the constitution that wouldn't allow this?

If it is possible, why has nobody tried it? It seems like a more effective method of taxation than sweeping broad taxes that only look at pure income. I mean income really doesn't say everything about your wealth or your ability to pay taxes and how much you contribute to the economy.

Actually, just fire every member of congress if a deal is not reached. That was the original point of the "sequestration", anyway... not to actually trim the budget, but as a threat ("incentive", if you will) to get congress to actually make things happen. Basically, taking the american public hostage! Well, we should have taken the damn lawmakers hostage...! I say next time congress wants to make sure an agreement is made, the consequences of not reaching a settlement should be auto-impeachment for the lot of them. We should be having new elections this spring, not new taxes...

... just fire every member of congress if a deal is not reached? That was the original point of the "sequestration", anyway... not to actually trim the budget, but as a threat to force congress to actually get things done. Basically, taking the american public hostage! Well, we should have taken the damn lawmakers hostage...! I say next time congress wants to make sure an agreement is made, the consequences of not reaching a settlement should be auto-impeachment for the lot of them. We should be having new elections this spring, not new taxes...

They have lots of important and more importantly factual points that they could be making on both sides, why do they insist on tossing all this tripe, half of which ends up being false anyway, into the airwaves?

I've been seeing two numbers that seem to conflict. First of all, the fact that we are only 68,000 jobs from having as many total jobs as before Obama took office. He has created several million and lost several million over the last four years, and we are more or less at the "breaking even" point where we have as many jobs as before the recession.

However, we don't have the same unemployment as we did before the recession? We dropped down to 7.8%, and according to some more conservative sources we should have something like 10-11% unemployment if the same number of people as were in the workforce before the recession were in it now?

How can we have the same number of jobs as before but more unemployment? Is this because the number of work-elegible people has grown in the last four years? Thanks

I've been seeing two numbers that seem to conflict. First of all, the fact that we are only 68,000 jobs from having as many total jobs as before Obama took office. He has created several million and lost several million over the last four years, and we are more or less at the "breaking even" point where we have as many jobs as before the recession.

However, we don't have the same unemployment as we did before the recession? We dropped down to 7.8%, and according to some more conservative sources we should have something like 10-11% unemployment if the same number of people as were in the workforce before the recession were in it now?

How can we have the same number of jobs as before but more unemployment? Is this because the number of work-elegible people has grown in the last four years? Thanks

I've been seeing two numbers that seem to conflict. First of all, the fact that we are only 68,000 jobs from having as many total jobs as before Obama took office. He has created several million and lost several million over the last four years, and we are more or less at the "breaking even" point where we have as many jobs as before the recession.

However, we don't have the same unemployment as we did before the recession? We dropped down to 7.8%, and according to some more conservative sources we should have something like 10-11% unemployment if the same number of people as were in the workforce before the recession were in it now?

How can we have the same number of jobs as before but more unemployment? Is this because the number of work-elegible people has grown in the last four years? Thanks

Guess they should be arming themselves better... only one gun in the house, really mom & pop should get one each, no?

[Insert narrow-minded rant based on blatant straw man argument]

[Broadest possible generalization of above political party's opinions]

[Yes, believe it or not, EVERYONE who is a ________ thinks this awfully phrased thing]

[Uninformed, statistically inaccurate assertion backed up by:]

[www.biasedmedianewssourceofyourchoice.com]

And likewise for Romney, Conservatives, a criticism, and Liberals, something you agree with him on...

... if you completely 100% disagree with a candidate on everything and dislike every policy position they have ever held, then I think you're rather narrow-minded, uninformed and don't know as much about said person than you'd like to think. Look into what they have actually done and said, everything. We all disagree with our favored candidates on something, and agree with "the enemy" on some issues. Let's hear it!

I realize this is more of a conservative talking point, so sorry for the bias, but I'd like to hear opinions from all sides. We've been running a trillion-dollar deficit for nearly five years now and our debt doesn't seem to stop piling up... Defense Spending, Social Security, and Medicare are taking up 20-25% of the federal government's budget each, about 12% goes to welfare. The rest is smaller chunks (the largest, interestingly, being interest on our debt, about 6%).

Why are we spending so much, and what can we do to fix it?

I realize this is more of a liberal talking point and I apologize for the bias, but I'd like to hear opinions from all sides. There's no denying the growing income inequality over the past decade and beyond... what do you think the causes are?

Why does it feel like both sides (liberal and conservative) overlook this 70% of our economy? The problem seems to always be described in terms of job creation, businesses and investors, and how the government affects them through regulation and taxation. Why is the other end of the equation, consumer demand, never a part of the discussion? Executive policy definitely affects it.

Fewer people buying cars, TV's, eating at restaurants... we can make it as easy as we want for companies to create jobs, but if nobody's buying, they still aren't going to expand. Now I make no judgement call about the effect of government intervention here, but why do we never hear politicians describe what they are going to do about the fact that consumer indices are still in the negative and far below pre-recession levels? Especially in the presidential race? Or am I just not listening at the right times?