Mickey Mouse Spears

I've narrowed the problem down, and it's at the supply line to the fill valve. When I shut off the water supply and turn it back on, it fills the tank as it normally would -- but it's a one time fix. It won't work next time I flush, because if I flush it again, the flow is back to a drip. So I have to turn off the water again and turn it back on to get it to fill like normal. I have to shut off the water to the supply line every time if I want the tank to fill. How can I fix this permanently?

Serrated knife?

Animal claws?

Road rash?

Other?

(Note: the image of the wound is not extremely graphic / is safe for work)

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2886/injury.jpg

The person was found in a creek, late spring, water temperature was 60F. Time of death was 10 to 15 hours prior to the time the photograph was taken. The victim had suffered blunt force trauma to the head and had ligatures tying the right wrist to right ankle; left wrist to left ankle.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Multiple Injuries with Drowning.

MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide.

This relates to a DNA match, where two hairs were found. One was found to be similar to the stepfather of one of the victims, and also occurred in 1.5% of the population; the other one belonged to the man's friend and occurred in 7% of the population.

What are the odds that such a combination would occur by mere chance?

By "basic facts," I mean unbiased and fundamental facts that are neither inculpatory or exculpatory.

Here are some examples of what I mean when I say "basic facts":

- John Doe was found dead at such-and-such place and time.

- Jane Doe was the last person known to have seen John Doe.

- John Doe's body exhibited signs of physical trauma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xbr7YSbRkE

When a person commits suicide and leaves a note, the police take the note into evidence. Will they ever return the note? How long do they keep it for, generally?

None of his family or friends had read the note before it was taken in as evidence.

In your opinion, if a woman consents to having her breasts massaged on multiple occasions by a dentist, under the premise that it is a proven treatment for a certain joint disorder in the jaw, then she finds out other patients have filed a complaint, should she have cause for complaint as well? Would simply changing the premise be sufficient to cause a person to go from being a patient to being a victim? She did not feel victimized at the time of the act, so would the new sense of being a victim be false?

Clearly the patient didn't feel victimized until others complained, because she kept going back to the same dentist and received the treatment six times.

It's as if you can put the idea in a person's head that hugs are naughty, and anytime somebody hugs them after that, they will feel traumatized. But in that case, isn't it the person who made the suggestion the one who traumatized them? Not the hugger?

There are huge implications with this line of thinking, I know, but it's something worth thinking about.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301710,00.html

I'm asking for opinions only, without regard to what the law states. I'm curious to know what other people think.

I say we need to repeal freedom of religion -- take it out of the Bill of Rights right now or the terrorists will win!!

They will be playing basketball, they will be swimming, they will be Muslim, and they will be near Ground Zero rubbing their Yoga class in our faces!

I've heard lot of emotional arguments against it, but none that are logical or reasonable. It's ironic that so many of the people fighting against it would also be the first to say that terrorists attacked us because they "hate freedom." But who hates freedom if not those who don't stand up for it when it gets a little uncomfortable?

This intolerance is all the more reason why this cultural center needs to be built. It needs to stand as possibly one of the most TRUE testaments to freedom in America. What would be a better testament to freedom than to resolve to remain free even when we don't like it? What would be a better kick in the teeth of freedom than to deny it to those we disagree with? To those who some feel are acting in poor taste?

As it's been said time & time again, the Bill of Rights is not intended to protect what's popular; it's intended to protect unpopular speech, unpopular religion, etc. because what is popular does not need to be protected.

I was looking to get my son a bike with training wheels for his 4th birthday, and I came across these (new?) balance bikes (example images below), which have no pedals, no training wheels, and no chain. I'm tempted to buy one of these instead of a standard bike with training wheels, but I'm also talking myself out of it at the same time. Here are my thoughts:

The idea behind a balance bike is that they teach children balance before pedaling, but the downside is that the balance bike cannot be converted into a proper two-wheel bicycle, and the cost is about the same, making the balance bike nothing more than a mere novelty in my mind. And although I'm not completely familiar with the construction of either style of bicycle, as far as I can tell, any standard bicycle can have the pedals and chain removed and you'll essentially have a balance bike, right?

The one upside to a balance bike is that it doesn't cause a child to become training-wheel dependent. I can see my son falling into that "trap," but is that REALLY a big concern? I mean, I've never seen a teenager still struggling to overcome his dependence on training-wheels, have YOU?

Still... balance bikes seem to have gotten a lot of favorable reviews from parents who say "I can imagine my son or daughter being able to ride a bike in no time," but then again, there is no actual testimonial from or about a successfully transitioned, full-fledged bicyclist. Who knows if they found the transition to be any easier, especially with no basis for comparison?

Do any parents or bicycle enthusiasts out there have insights that might help me resolve this matter of bicycle vs. balance bike?

Pictures of balance bikes:

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Balance%20bik...

Be creative.

There is usually a purpose to scientific research, and I assume the study of natural selection and evolution is no exception, but does anybody know what that purpose is? Is it merely to achieve an understanding, or is it being done in hopes to achieve some greater end?

It was explained that 5 minutes of dreaming in reality / level 0 corresponds to 1 hour in the subconscious, and the deeper you descend into the person's subconscious, the more the effect is multiplied.

My question is this: Was it stated in the movie by how much the effect was multiplied as you entered deeper levels of the subconscious?

Was it time spent dreaming (in reality / level 0), multiplied by 12 to the power of the level of subconscious, which equals the amount of time experienced in the subconscious?

For example, if T=Time spent in a dream state in reality / level 0, the 2nd level would be T*12^2, and the 3rd level would be T*12^3 (since five minutes spent dreaming in level 0 is 1/12th the amount of time experienced in level 1). Is that how it worked?

By a meaningful prediction, I mean a prediction that has saved even one life, or prevented any kind of hardship?

I can't figure out the appeal for the life of me. I've read a lot of poetry, too, with the intention of giving it a fair chance. Can somebody offer some insights or perspective that might help me to see the beauty in what, to me, is mostly word salad?