I dvred it.

That being said, I don't care so much about Robin's personality - although it does seem like she never shuts up - but I think she has escaped elimination only because, on any given episode, she has either been blessed with immunity (once), or someone else has executed even worse than she did.  She could easily have gone home last week, if Ash had had the courage of his cooking convictions and not allowed himself to cook what Eli suggested.  She's been in the bottom a lot, and I think that is a reflection of her skill and her palate.

As things stand now, I see the Brothers V in the finale for sure - unless something major happens - and I see Jen and Kevin right now in a battle for that third spot.  Of the two of them, I think Jen, surprisingly, looks the weaker of the two.

I think Mike I. is doing barely enough to hang on, neither wowing nor massively disappointing the judges, but I think that mediocrity sends him home pretty soon.

In 1990, Sen. Inouye actually backed her opponent (Honolulu's current mayor, Mufi Hannemann) in a Democratic primary, so there was definitely no love lost between them.

The sad part about that is that both Mrs. Mink and Sen. Inouye were both individuals of tremendous personal accomplishment, both on Capitol Hill and in Hawaii, but I think Dan Inouye really resented that as the "Mother of Title IX" she was his equal in that regard - and truth be told, Hawaii is an awfully small pond for two big congressional fish.

When Ms. Leamon tried to report the crime to her superiors, KBR instead attempted to suppress the incident, neglected to get her proper medical treament, and forced her to work alongside her own rapists for weeks on end, until she felt compelled to seek legal counsel in the States.

Please also consider the following:

(a) Because the crime occurred outside the borders of the United States in a sovereign Iraq, the U.S. Justice Dept. under George W. Bush claimed it was powerless to do anything.

(b) Further, the U.S. Defense Dept. claimed that since the alleged assailants were civilian contractors, they were not subject to military legal jurisdiction under UCMJ.

(c) Also, Iraq has no authority to try U.S. civilians and military personnel for criminal acts committed on its soil.

(d) Finally, KBR required employees, as a condition of employment, to submit to binding private arbitration in disputes with the contractors, which includes allegations of sexual assault by other KBR employees, instead of bringing complaints to public courts.

And she was not the first subjected to such horrifying treatment by the mercenaries paid with our tax dollars.  The attack on her happened months after Jamie Leigh Jones told a House of Representatives committee that she had been raped by KBR/Halliburton co-workers in 2005 and was held in a shipping container for a day after reporting it.  And Mary Beth Kineston also testified to the House committee about a sexual assault against her in 2004, while she worked as a truck driver with her husband, both for KBR in Iraq.

The Facts of Criminal Liability

Federal criminal liability can attach to an organization whenever an employee commits an
act within the apparent scope of his or her employment, even if the employee acted contrary to specific organizational policies and instructions. An entire organization, despite its best efforts to prevent wrongdoing within its ranks, can nonetheless be held criminally liable for any of its employees' illegal actions.

At the federal level, some three hundred organizations annually, including non-profit entities, partnerships, unions, trusts, pension funds, and corporations, are criminally convicted, primarily for fraud, environmental pollution, money laundering, antitrust, and food and drug violations. While many of these are small privately-held companies, a substantial number of large and publicly-held companies are among them. The ensuing penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines may include monetary fines, court-supervised probation of the company's operations for up to five years, restitution, public notices of apology to victims (for example, apologies to communities bordering a polluted river), and exposure to applicable forfeiture statutes.

In addition, the collateral civil and administrative consequences of a criminal conviction may have even greater negative impact on the company. These commonly include loss of regulatory licenses, loss of opportunity to participate in government-sponsored programs and contracts, reputational damage, and productivity decline attributable to lower employee morale.
Because of the strict standard of vicarious liability to which organizations are subjected under criminal law, the federal penalty structure implemented by the United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, attempted to alleviate the harshest aspects of institutional vulnerability by incorporating various opportunities for the mitigation of the severity of the punishment.

The centerpiece of mitigation under the federal organizational sentencing guidelines (see
Link) addresses the implementation of compliance
and ethics programs within the operational structure of any organization, whatever its size or nature. Indeed, this regime of internal crime prevention and self-policing may even persuade the Department of Justice to forgo the pursuit of criminal penalties under its revised 2003 Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations (Link).

I have not, at this point, adopted the chinchillas.
I sort of left it up to the current parent as to when and how to proceed since I sensed he was extremely conflicted and was only doing it as a result of girlfriend pressure.

All the formulas do is put lipstick on a pig!

As a Sarah Palin supporter, you do know more about lipstick on a pig than anyone else here, but you still have demonstrated no counter-example to back up your claim.

Here's more about the subject:

The relationship between p values and confidence intervals also provides us with a more sensible way to think about what the "p" in "p value" stands for. I've already said that it's the probability of a more extreme (positive or negative) result than what you observed, when the population value is null. But hey, what does that really mean? I get lost every time I try to wrap my brain around it. Here's something much better: if your observed effect is positive, then half of the p value is the probability that the true effect is negative. For example, you observed a correlation of 0.25, and the p value was 0.30. OK, the chance that the true value of the correlation is negative (less than zero) is 0.15 or 15%; or you can say that the odds of a negative correlation are 0.15:0.85, or about 1 to 6 (1 to 0.85/0.15). Maybe it's better to it turn around and talk about a probability of 0.85 (= 1 - p/2), or odds of 6 to 1, that the true effect is positive. Here's another example: you observed an increase in performance of 2.6%, and the p value was 0.04, so the probability that performance really did increase is 0.98, or 49 to 1. Check your understanding by working out how to interpret a p value of exactly 1.

So, if you want to include p values in your next paper, here is a new way to describe them in the Methods section: "Each p value represents twice the probability that the true value of the effect has any value with sign opposite to that of the observed value." I wonder if reviewers will accept it. In plain language, if you observe a positive effect, 1 - p/2 is the probability that the true effect is positive. But even with this interpretation, p values are not a great way to generalize an outcome from a sample to a population, because what matters is clinical significance, not statistical significance.

Optional Link

From the study itself:

To examine the impact of candidate choice on testosterone levels after the election outcome announcement, a repeated-measures ANCOVA was run with post-outcome testosterone at T2, T3, and T4 as a within-subjects factor and testosterone at T1 as a baseline covariate. A significant Time x Outcome (Win/Loss) interaction was observed in men (F(2, 100) = 3.40, p = 0.04), but not women (F(2, 188) = 0.39, p = 0.68) (Fig. 1). To quantify the effect of the outcome on relative changes in testosterone from before to after the election, residualized testosterone change scores were calculated from T1 to T4, where effects were predicted to be maximal according to time-course changes in salivary testosterone [31]. Residual testosterone change scores measure testosterone change between two time-points (T1 & T4) while controlling for variance in testosterone at baseline (T1). Using ANOVA, candidate choice predicted differences in men's testosterone residuals (F(1, 51) = 4.72, p = 0.03), with supporters of John McCain or Bob Barr having significantly larger testosterone decreases from T1 to T4 than supporters of Barack Obama (Fig. 1). Moreover, the candidate choice effect on men's testosterone change remained even when participants' conservatism, as measured by the RWA scale [18], was partialled out of the analysis (F(1, 49), = 5.39, p = 0.03). Further still, the candidate choice effect was maintained when adding an additional covariate which accounted for voters' intensity of support for their candidate (F(1, 48), = 5.37, p = 0.03). Using ANOVA, voter group failed to predict differences in women's testosterone residuals (F(1, 97) = 0.12, p = 0.74) (Fig. 1). When including the RWA scale and voters' support intensity as covariates, voter group still failed to predict differences in women's testosterone residuals (F(1,91) = 0.71, p = 0.71).
.................................

In retrospective reports of their affective state upon the announcement of Obama as the president-elect, McCain and Barr voters felt significantly more unhappy (t(159) = 22.98, p<0.001), submissive (t(160) = −11.30, p<0.001), unpleasant (t(160) = −20.10, p<0.001), and controlled (t(158) = 6.42, p<0.001) than Obama voters.
...............................................

In past studies of competition, males' testosterone levels have risen in response to winning [4]. However, in this study, winning males' testosterone stayed constant from four hours before to after the election outcome, as opposed to rising. We argue that this is evidence of resistance to the circadian decline in men's testosterone levels, which would typically be observable over the four hour period spanning election polls closing to the collection of the last post-outcome saliva sample [22], [25]. Thus, such resistance to circadian decline over such a long period is conceptually similar to a rise in testosterone levels. Most previous non-physical competition studies have used competitions with significantly shorter durations [4], [27], [31], [33], during which testosterone levels would be much less susceptible to circadian changes. In contrast, the observed drop in the salivary testosterone levels of McCain and Barr voters was of greater magnitude than would be expected as a function of circadian decline [22], [25]. In an effort to specifically control for the effects of normal circadian decline in testosterone levels over several hour spans, future studies of this nature could also collect saliva samples from the same subjects on a control evening over the same span of time.

......................................................

Physiological changes in voters were also accompanied by changes in affective state. Those who voted for a losing candidate felt significantly more controlled, submissive, unhappy, and unpleasant at the moment of the outcome than did those who voted for the winning candidate, which corroborates past research [31]. However, it is unclear the extent to which testosterone is directly implicated in these subjective affective states. In humans and other mammals, males' testosterone increases after winning promote willingness to compete in another dominance contest, while testosterone decreases promote withdrawing from further competition [3], [33], [37]. Since losing voters reported greater submissiveness, we speculate that losing males, who also experienced testosterone decrements, might have been less motivated to engage in dominance behavior after the election. Moreover, since the dominance hierarchy shift following a presidential election is stable for 4 years, the stress of having one's political party lose control of executive policy decisions could plausibly lead to continued testosterone suppression in males [2].

So, as you can see, the p value was very small, which statistically means that the N value, or number of men in the sample was statistically significant.

And, using the formula given above in my first example, 1-(.03/2) gives a value of .985, which is pretty clearly near the value of 1