Ugh https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641

Depending on how you use batteries, this can be an extremely useful test that doesn't require any additional tools.

I'm generally not in the habit of using a battery a little bit, then removing it from whatever device and putting it back into storage. I put batteries in things and use them until they don't have enough charge to power those things. Sometimes "dead" in a high drain device (digital camera, shaver) can still provide enough juice to power a low-drain device (clock), but the majority of the time I use them until they are ready to be thrown away.

When you've got 8 batteries in a pile, 4 that you know are brand new and 4 that you just took out of some device that has exhausted their charge, the bounce technique works extremely well for figuring out which is which if you weren't paying attention and got them mixed up.

Your video, Man Pranks Mom - Head Shaver, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Touche, on the sharp metal blades part. Didn't think about that. Maybe she uses electric shaver. They're more forgiving.

Given the title, I was expecting to see a lot more electric shavers.

Really? Because I'm a fairly hairy fellow, and I have a Philishave shaver that works pretty much perfectly for me. If I wait much longer than a few days between shaves then I have to use the trimming attachment before I can shave normally, but aside from that it works great. Certainly, it's easier than going through the trouble of putting on shaving cream and having to rinse the shaver every five seconds and all the other rigmarole that goes with non-electric shaving.

Electric shavers don't work. I've tried 4 of them.

I've got one electric shaver right now that works great assuming you've got less than 5 o'clock shadow, but can't shave anything longer than that.

I got the idea of using old fashioned razors from Battlestar Galactica, honestly. They have a bit of a fetish for scenes involving old-fashioned razors.

It doesn't help that my beard is to a regular beard as rigatoni is capellini.

What is this, 1937? Why don't you just get an electric shaver?

I tried that half a beard look once.


For a few minutes until my electric shaver had just enough charge to finish the rest.

woot "Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky"! this movie kicks ass, the scene before this he takes a wood shaver and shaves off the dudes face thats standing next to him with the bandages.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
These FOX reporters can't complain, all things considered. Think about what the French did to the collaborators after the collapse of the Vichy regime. Still, it would be nice to shave all their heads.


Eeeeerm ...
Dear Kronos, don't you think that french people's reputation is bad enough ?
This part of our history isn't something we're proud of. Blind vengeance, mainly perpetrated by people who have collaborated themselves or been passive. Many shavers have been shaved afterwards, in the same vicious circle of hate.

>> ^quantumushroom:

They've got all of Europe to emigrate to if they want government to take care of them.

Well, Europe is getting worse, but in a more subtil way

And actually, as a Real French that I am, I'm preparing myself to the next invasion by learning to speak Russian

This is like Gillette shavers. I wants moar strings.

I think the original, or classic guitar, is better and more thought out than the new 7 and 8 strings. We only have 4½ fingers to work with, which means that the extra strings can't be used at the same time. It seems to find a niche with metal, because metal-heads want to go way low to make the guitar growl and still be able to solo in the higher notes, but I doubt it will have a big market penetration anywhere else.

Cases full of unmarked twenties would be excellent. I told my wife to get me nothing this year because she let me buy the big telescope last month. I think she got me a shaver though since I sport a clean chin now instead of a beard and my current shaving equipment is just horrifically hateful.

but upon further inspection it seems more like a whitewash when examining the history of the story. (read below) Sometimes it's the things not mentioned when someone is giving an explanation.

http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

In August 2003, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book by Tom Vail claims that the Grand Canyon is really only a few thousand years old, developing over a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. That same month, the Grand Canyon National Park superintendent appealed to NPS Headquarters for a “review of the book in terms of its appropriateness” for sale in a park-sponsored facility.

In repeated public statements and in response to inquiries from members of Congress, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna stated that NPS would conduct a high-level policy review. He distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In late February 2004, Mr. Barna crafted a letter which was sent to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all.

In fact, the promised review never occurred. According to responses PEER obtained from NPS under the Freedom of Information Act, NPS deliberately avoided conducting the review in order to let the controversy die down. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon Association ordered hundreds more copies of the book and offered it for a time for sale on the internet site as “natural history” (it is now the sole offering in a heretofore nonexistent category labeled “inspirational”).

During this same period, a review by Park Service geologists not only found the book wildly inaccurate but that its sale violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs. On January 25, 2004 David Shaver, the Chief of the Park Service’s Geologic Resources Division sent a memo (enclosed) to NPS Headquarters calling for removal of the book, concluding --
“Our review of …NPS policies and Grand Canyon: A Different View, lead us to conclude that this book: does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; does not further the mission of the National Park Service…and finally, that this book should not have been approved for sale in NPS affiliated book sales.”

At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters.

________________________

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred.
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder6.html

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=428

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/publiclands/faith-based/index.php

Well being a G.I. Joe fan I want the 25th Anniversary collection. A new electric shaver. And a xbox 360 would be nice but I'm not holding out for it. (My original xbox is being stupid, and no it's not the operators fault.)

For the Wife I got her a new watch, A bathrobe, and a generous gift card to her favorite shoe store. I also bought her the moonlight book series. She wouldn't tell me anything else.

Both our parents are getting Family photo's of us (because they don't want us to be poor they asked us not to give them anything.) But this is a fairly cheep gift and it's at least something.

As for siblings, they aren't sparing a dime on us so we're holding off any gifting exchanges until I'm done with school and making more then a paupers living.