I don't know if this has been answered yet but has anyone here even gave an answer on how universal organ donation could even be done.

Organs being in short supply in a problem but I doubt universal organ donation would solve the problem at all.  

First how would the time problem be over come, organs are only viable for a pretty short amount of time, most falling between 12 and 24 hours, you got some organs that only remain viable for like 3 or 4 hours and the longest can last roughly 48 hours.  You got a relataviely short amount of time to get the organ out of the first, prepared for shipment, shipped, and put in the person that needed it.  Honestly time is the biggest issue there is, even universal donations would not solve the time problem.

Second you got the problem of donors not being compatible.  While having a universal donation would increase the amount of compatible organs there are, there are still no guarantee that a suitable match for you would be present when you need it.  Even if you had a match there is still the time problem of getting it to you in time.

Third you got the age issue.  More then likely you will not want to get an older person's organ, it simiply would not last long and would already have a great deal of wear to it already.  So right from the start you are removing a decent amount of organs already avaiable.  But this is where the age donation issue comes in is that it is really hard to transplant organs between kids and adults.  Organs form children are ussualy to small or weak to be suitable for an adult to use and adult organs are normally to large to be used in children.  Some organs can be somewhat easily transplanted from adults to kids, like kidneys which can be cut down to size and still function but other organs like heart and lungs can not be cut down to size.  Even with transplant that are successful between adults and kids, I can't remember the exact percentage but a large amount of them die within a few years, most within a decade, and I think it was like 90% within two decades.  

This whole universal donation thing is basicly nothing more then a giant feel good program that has no possiable way of actually working.  If people really wanted to help people in need of organ transplants there are two things that they could do that would help out far more then trying to have universal donations.  The first, and more of a short term solution, would be to fund research that would extend the vitability of organs outside of the body.  If we can find a decent method of keeping organs vital outside of the body longer then that alone would greatly solve many of the donation issues.  The second and a more distant goal would be to advance stem cell research to the point where we can start growing a person new organs that they need.  That would solve just about every possiable organ transplant problem.  

On my mom's side I got Irish, German, and Biritsh, there may be some Scottish in there too but I ain't sure.  History wise not to much excitement except for some Irish mercenary a good bit back.  

On my dad's side I got Lithuanian, Hugarian, and I got an ancestor from the former Czechoslovakia but I ain't sure which of the 7 main ethnic groups that made up Czechoslovakia they where from.  Not much excitement here either except for a decent chance of bing related to former Lithuanian nobility.    

I read the article and it said nothing about hitting a space wall.  All the article has said was that the Voyager 1 has detected a new region of space at the very edge of our solar system and that in a few years due to the power supply running out of power some systems will be turned off to prolong the functional lifespan of the probe so further data about the edge of our solar system and the space between solar systems can be better researched.

That is far different then hitting a space wall.

Obviously, the Native Americans are the real indigenous people of America, but Europeans and Africans have been on what is now US soil for at least four to five hundred years. Today, most whites and blacks in the US are racially or ethnically mixed. Most whites have at least two or three European ethnicities, and there are millions who have varying amounts of African and/or Native American ancestry. The same applies for blacks. Most have some degree of European and/or Native American ethnic background. So are whites and blacks more native to the US (because they've been here for almost half a millennium) or are they still racially and ethnically indigenous to Europe and Africa, respectively? I'm talking just on a racial and ethnic standpoint. Don't bring culture into this. I am well aware that whites are far more culturally American than European and blacks more culturally American than African. 

gamerguru100

I know this is really minor but most people in America can only trace their ancestroy in America back about roughly 150 to 85 years ago if they are of European descent since most of the mass migrations from Europe only really occured between the 1850s and 1930s.  With people of African descent it is a bit earlier because of the slave trade but even then the slave trade didn't start out with mass amount of slaves from Africa till about early 1800s.  If I am remembering my histroy correctly while there where African slaves in the Americas since the first colonies they didn't really start to become numerous in number as slaves till later on when the Native American slaves began to fall out of favor of use because of declining populations of where the Native American slaves where captured and because they considered Native American slaves to be weaker then African slaves so overall where viewed as less efficent and more costly.  

Besides from that minor bit I would say that the people born and living in America are more American then European/African simply because for the most part the people of America do not follow European/African cultures at all.  There are some traditions that have carried over from Europe/Africa but America has now become its own culture.  Some people are even starting to think that the difference in the English spoken here compared to in Europe, more precisely the UK, is starting to move beyond a different dialect but to its own language.  

Out of all the consoles I have had, I have had two PS3 fail and one Wii fail.  The console failing was not the fault of Sony and Nintendo but rather the store from where I bought them.  After having three of the consoles fail I found out the store that I bought all three from had a habit of electronic devices failing because the people running the electronic part of the store had a habit of dropping the boxes when stocking them and generally mistreating pretty much all of the electronics.  

From my experience it isn't really launch units that have problems but rather how the store handles its supply.

I admit I do not plan on pre-ordering a PS4, I might but it depends on when it will be launched.  Being in college for both a math and engineering degree I wouldn't really be able to enjoy it till winter break anyway so I don't see much of a point in me pre-ordering it.  

Soy milk for me, I would go milk but being allergic and needing to have an Epipen, I mean having to use the Epipen, going to the emergency room, and potenetially dieing all from drinking milk would ruin my day and I generally try not to ruin my day.   

The Tsar bomb was impressive but as a weapon it was highly impratical.  While it was extremely powerful it was simply to large to put on any missile that the USSR had, even their biggest bomber had problems carring it.  If I remember correctly the USSR basicly took the largest bomber aircraft they had, removed pretty much everything from it that wasn't essential to flight to maximize the load it could carry, if I am remembering correctly again they even had to remove the bomb bay doors due just to the size of the bomb.  Even with the plane having all non essential components removed when it was carring the bomb it was painfully slow compared to other aircraft.  

It could never really be used as an effective weapon, you couldn't fire it from a missile and any bomber carrying it would be easily detexted to radar and would be moving extremely slow compared to other aircraft.  It was more a sign of soviet engineering and scientifc advancement then of an actual weapon system to be used.  

But he still realsed classified military documents during an active conflict.  No matter how anyone tries to spin it he basicly commited treason.

It doesn't matter if they where hanging off the helicopters or not and I am not deny that the evacuation of Saigon was chaotic mostly because we also took as many SouthVietnamese as we could fit in the helicopters but it doesn't change the fact that only 1373 Americans where evacuated from Saigon with most of them being diplomats, civilians, and a few soldiers guarding the embassy. By the time Saigon fell the US already pulled out all US military forces two years prior.

What source are you using that the Vietamese/VietKong favored them instead of US forces. Every single source I have read has stated that Americans killed far many more Vietnamese then they killed of us so if I could prove a link to some kind of source I would appreicate it. I hate to use wikipedia as a source but its casulities part on the right matches for the most part everything I have read from other sources give or take a thousand deaths here or there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

That is just simplity incorrect information, we where fighting both the Viet Kong and North Vietnamese forces threw out the whole war. It is true that we did most if not all of the fighitng, can't remember because as I said I been up for over 24 hours, below the 17th parallel but we did fight both threw out the whole war. Where I think you are making a mistake is in that the Viet Cong where made up of both irregualor guerrilla forces and regular North Vietnam military units.

Lastly civilian casaulities are not listed in with the amound of combatants killed, they are all factored into a total amount killed during the war but all records do make a clear distinction between civilian and combatant deaths.

One can not deny that we did settle for a situtaiton in Vietnam similar to what was in Korea and thus reached our objective, but decided not to stay for the second round and left South Vietnam to fend for itself.

I would normally give a more detailed response but I got some stuff to do.

If you consider not leaveing until 1975 as pulling out the diplomats, civilian personal, and extremely minimal military forces used to guard the Embassy then ya, we didn't leave till 1975. Only 1373 Americans where flown out of South Vietnam so it was hardly a military pressences.

As for 1971 they pulled out the vast majority and by 1973 what little remained was pulled out as the cease fire was signed by both sides and the fighitng didn't openly start again till 1974.

Since you doubt what I was saying about the cease firehttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paris-peace-accords-signed

We did get what we wanted but it didn't last more then 2 years and we decided not to go back for a second round.