champu

As an American between the ages of 18 and 24, I'd just like to say I have no idea who Lindsey Lohan is (I looked her up just now and I still don't recognize her.) I also missed the CSI question that was in the survey, leaving me with 19/20. I was disappointed about that.

I found a place in El Segundo called "Big Mike's" that makes a good one. I don't think they'll put lettuce or tomato on it even if you ask them. A Portillos opened up recently in Anaheim so Italian beef sandwiches on the way home from the dropzone Sunday evenings may become a ritual. There's also a good New York deli in Torrance where you can get a proper pastrami sandwich. What is really lacking out here is Chicago-Style deep-dish. A guy at work claims there's a place out in Moreno Valley. That's a bit of a drive, but I haven't been to Chicago since November, so it's starting to sound closer and closer.

sorry, i'm west coast. we don't have that crap here. j/k! i used to love the KK when i lived in VA. Actually, I think I saw one down in Torrance, off of PCH.

I think we're actually agreeing here. Beliefs sit somewhere between our senses and rational thought, limiting or altering what of the former is available to the later.

I think the actions of the Bush administration over the last 5 years have done all the polarizing that needs to be done.

To clarify, I didn't intend applause to mean the immediate audience clapping their hands, I was referring to people that already agreed with the statement praising its presentation after the fact. You're right though, if you really get through to someone they're most likely not going to laugh about it, or at least not right away. I'm simply unsure of how much introspection he inspired in those he referred to as "backwash."

It's interesting that so many people laud Colbert's roast for sticking it to Bush and the media, while to me it came off as a submissive declaration of misery. He may have felt that other tactics had been used and failed, so he choose a sardonic one. Even though I may agree with many of his underlying points, I cringe as if hearing nails on a chalk board when I hear someone presenting something I agree with in a manner I feel is not going to get through to the audience. A political statement that should receive the most applause is not one that you think is true and that resonates with you, but one that you think is true, and resonates with those that think otherwise. Everything else is feel good crap. /edited to replace the word "believe" with the word "think" in my last statement.

Rational thought is just a set of tools (logic, critical thinking, et al.) that let us operate on what we observe, and what we remember. Beliefs, like the one this woman appears to hold (one might call them prejudices if looking for a more negative connotation) filter observations before rational thought even gets started. In a sense, one's quest for "truth" or "what's right" is over as soon as you believe anything. Philosophers and psychologists have gone on for ages about flaws in our ability to observe things, and while you could argue one way or the other about the merits of a belief system that makes you see the silver lining of every cloud, it's pretty hard to argue in favor of one that has you cheering for death at funerals.

This is the best thread ever.

I've found Wikipedia is good for fact finding with general technical/scientific issues, but if you try to look up a person or a corporation, you may be asking for trouble. For example, I just discovered I build airplanes.

Hmm... sounds like you're preparing to build a gingerbread house. Which is fine, I'm all for it, but keep your damn hands off Hansel and Gretel.

Restaurants and bars should not be treated as public places in the same sense that beaches and parks are public places. The former, being businesses, should be allowed to cater to patrons as they choose. The latter, however, are a truly public resource, and are shared by those who visit them, pay taxes, and vote. If you want to get rid of smoking on the beach and in parks you visit, you head to the policy makers, your local government, perhaps with a petition in hand, and ask for a ban on smoking in these places. In California, this has happened, and it has made the beaches here completely smoke-free. If you want to get rid of smoking in the restaurants and bars you visit, you head to the policy makers, the owners, perhaps with a petition in hand, and ask for a ban on smoking in these places. What you don't do is go over their heads, to the government and get smoking banned in all restaurants and bars. You don't have to go to the government to make a new law for everything you want done. But I guess when the only tool you bother to carry in your tool bag is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

You are bypassing the problem with zero tolerance laws in your examples. Many argue these types of rules "outlaw common sense" and while that may be true, common sense never translated well into a rule book, so that's probably not a very good argument. What does translate well into a rule book is intent, and intent is exactly the thing to which administrators are turning their backs because of zero-tolerance policies. If I'm driving, and swerve to avoid a crate that falls off a truck, hop a curb and run over a pedestrian, breaking their legs, that's one thing. If I'm driving on an open road, see someone I don't like walking along the sidewalk, swerve on purpose, hop the curb, break their legs, that's entirely different. These situations are also treated differently in our legal system, which is a good thing. If you bring a cap gun to school to act as a prop in play, that's one thing. If you bring a cap gun to school and point it at teachers and students as you walk around in the hallway, that's another. But with zero-tolerance policies in place, they are treated one in the same, and that's a bad thing.

Except maybe the smoking patrons, but f$%^ them... OSHA has done a lot of really good things for workers since the 1970s, and although in a handful of situations they've imposed standards which might be construed as "treating people like idiots," I'd consider the organization to be a good thing. But this isn't about OSHA, this is about "sicking" the government on businesses to make them cater to your liking. druvaughn spelled it out pretty nicely, there's some kind of underlying assumption that restaurants and bars need to allow smoking to stay competitive. His statement is that some restaurants banned smoking and yet in spite of that managed to do... um... better? Maybe there's less truth to that assumption than we thought. Rather than petition the government to put a smoking ban on the ballot, vote for it, and get smoking wiped off the planet, it would have been a lot harder to petition restaurant owners individually, and appeal to their wallet by showing them all the customers who want a smoke-free environment, but it might have also been the right thing to do.

Yeah? Go ahead.

I've handed in 35 pages worth of assignments in the last 7 days for school and had a design review all day yesterday at work... ...I think I'll join you.

It's funny that you mention that, Laurie Dhue's given name is "Lauren Dhue Trademark Dow Chemical Company (1968-2006). All Rights Reserved."

It's as good a way to meet new people as any.

Why yes, yes it is. That was jump one of a new day, of a near year... It may have been in the afternoon, but it was early afternoon...

it depends... ^2 could also mean, "flip the second least signifigant bit" I always forget where MATLAB draws lines in it's syntax with C, and a little while ago I couldn't remember if ^ was "to the power of" or "exclusive or'ed with" so to check, I typed at the prompt "3^6" and it comes back with something, I don't remember... 700-something, and I stared at it for a second and thought, "wow, that was useless, I really should have tried an example I knew the answer too."

Yes, that's all well and good, but how often do you actually use the mode of a set? Also, if "x" has an analytical solution, the problem isn't difficult enough.

Unfortunately, "we can't all just get along." Call me pessimistic, but given the tools of today, I don't believe there's a steady-state solution for mankind that involves all nations at peace with one another. The more things we remove as problems from the equation, the more absurd reasons we'll come up with to fight with one another. Right now, it would seem, we're somewhere between oil and Islam. Even more unfortunately, war sucks. But that, evidently, isn't enough to deter people from engaging in it. No, the best way to prevent absurd things from leading to war is to make war, in no uncertain terms, and to all parties involved, an even more absurd proposition. Nuclear weapons did just that by guaranteeing that you can, at best, tie. However they have that nasty side effect of causing, "fear of annihilation at any time," which is generally regarded as a bad thing. Maybe someday, mankind will get to a point where, not through use of fear, wars have become so ridiculous that they're no longer fought. Perhaps this will be via a new breakthrough in logic, reason, and diplomacy, or perhaps not, but if you think the entire defense industry is a bunch of monkeys pulling levers when the red light comes on to put the fins on the bomb, then you're mistaken.

first off... one of my all time favorites and then a couple I dug up are attached.

Despite the small actual number of people now leaving the country, this could be a very large step in the right direction. Al-Qaeda has been doing the most of any group to promote sectarian mistrust and violence through bombings of mosques, and other religious gatherings. Leaders, such as al-Sistani, have been doing a fairly good job at promptly encouraging peace among their followers after attacks, but there's only so long that was going to work before local militias go nuts.

For some, pondering makes for a nice way to relax, and take the edge off of the stress encountered at work and/or school. I like reading discussions, they offer a great deal of insight into the different ways the human brain can break down a problem. Some people watch television.