champu

Again, the uniqueness of the current state of all matter and energy in the universe is not an interesting observation given that we are standing to right of it having come to be this way on a timeline. Off topic responses... 1) 4 terabytes is far from unimaginable. The computer I'm sitting at right now has 3.5 TB of attached storage. 2) "DVD quality" doesn't actually mean anything. 3) You don't need pi to fill up your hard drive with garbage. You could just noise load an amplifier, feed it into an A/D, and record the resulting "data" for all eternity if you wanted a non-repeating series of digits.

You're missing the forest for the trees. If you take for granted that Humans were supposed to turn out in our current state and then try to go back and calculate the probability of everything happening to allow for that you're going to come up with some pretty thin odds. But if you set aside that assumption and realize that we would simply be something else (but perhaps still able to ask these same kinds of philosophical questions) for many of the links in the chain you laid out, you'll realize that we are quite remarkable, but not so mind-blowingly and religion-creatingly infeasible as you might first think. A similar critique applies to the article in the OP. When it comes to perspective, conditional probabilities are your friend. (Also, who you are is more than your DNA)

The first stage sounds terrible.

...from a conversation today with a coworker... Boresight: A pointing direction Boresite: A drilling location Borecite: A lackluster reference Boarsight: Pig vision Bohrsite: Niels's grave Boorcyte: A cell with poor manners Boersight: The viewpoint of a South African farmer

As much as I disagree with Kallend and dreamdancer on this topic, this is a crap argument Mike. Their argument is that it's the right thing to do if and only if everyone gets on board, and they're simply stating that they are willing to get on board. Similarly, you can't negotiate a strategic arms limitation treaty by saying, "Well if you're arguing that we should all get rid of our nuclear weapons, why don't you get rid of yours voluntarily even if the treaty doesn't get signed?"

If you re-read your post you've basically just said "tax people who make more at a higher rate" and all you've done is enumerate some of the groups you feel make a lot or don't make a lot. Do you have examples of people who make a lot of money who should be taxed at a lower rate or people who don't make very much who should be taxed heavily? I'm trying to get a better understanding of how this is really different than the more simple concept of a progressive tax structure. And remember, when you ask yourself the question of "who is more valuable" in terms of deciding tax rates on individuals, you don't get to pit a large group of people against a single person, or a huge group of people against a tiny group of people like factory workers vs. CEOs. "Who's more valuable? An orthopedic surgeon or six nurses?" I really can't answer that, it depends on what people come in with that shift, doesn't it?

I don't freaking know how that one works out either...but that's what one of the guys who co-owns the company said while we were enjoying his box seats at the stadium. If it sounds bogus and you can't understand how it could possibly be true...perhaps it's NOT TRUE? Given your history of misunderstandings, that's where my money goes. Agreed, Shah either misunderstood what the guy said and isn't relaying it properly, or his friend is seriously cooking his books. You can't write off things, nor can you get taxed on things, that aren't "real." So while you can potentially play around with costs and put together a "legal enough" story when you go to sell something, there's no way you can buy something and write off a loss while you're still in possession of it. It doesn't matter what "it" is.

If I force Harrison-Bergeron my phone onto EDGE I get... Ping: 382 ms D/L: 0.17 Mbps U/L: 0.05 Mbps

You used a lot of exclamation points too. I think it might have been a passing fad, but I remember a while ago it was a running joke in certain forums to take posts like the OP here, record yourself reading them verbatim (complete with spelling and grammatical errors) in the tone suggested by the punctuation, and post the audio file as a response in the thread. Ah, good times...

What?

iPhone 3Gs, iOS 5.0.1, and at&t (the program insists on connecting to a server in Kansas, which explains the poor ping performance) Ping: 208 ms D/L: 3.05 Mbps U/L: 0.27 Mbps For comparison, my cable modem (Road Runner/Time Warner) on my home computer connecting to Los Angeles yields... Ping: 16 ms D/L: 21.65 Mbps U/L: 0.95 Mbps

but this is still idiotic - it's just another income transaction - there's no reason for recipients to be taxed on those dollars at a rate different from any other dollars It's actually not just another income transaction. Wages, dividends, interest, capital gains, sales, stock options... they're all consideration for some form of economic activity. So long as the government continues to enable economic activity, it makes sense to tax these things to pay for it. It's at least theoretically sustainable (provided we get borrowing under control) because there is some feedback involved. Passing an estate to an heir is not consideration for anything. Dying or having a relative die is not an economic activity that the government enabled in any way. Estate taxes are a feel-good money grab because people hate the idea of "old money," but they're not sustainable. Kallend has pointed out numerous times that taxes aren't supposed to be "fair" but rather they're supposed to pay for shit. I agree with that much, and my argument isn't about estate taxes being fair or not, it's about them being short-sighted and stupid. People make the argument that the rich need to be paying more, which is okay. I think the tax brackets could stand to be fixed (both federal and in my state) and I think we need to fix how we differentiate long term capital gains from other investment vehicles to prevent people who make large amounts of what is for all intents and purposes wage income from being able to simply call it an "investment" and only pay 15% federal tax on it.

Like this? My favorite part is how Africa and the Indies aren't even on the map.

Getting to LEO is the first part. Going anywhere else involves much more complex mission engineering, less straight-forward power subsystems, more complex propulsion, more difficult communications, and crappier space weather environments. It's not much of a surprise that all nations that have tried their hand at traipsing around the solar system have had their fair share of failures. The Russians have had much better luck with Venus missions though.

If my left eye was correctable to 20/20 (and I spoke Russian) I'd be a shoe in for that job. Also, regarding Roscosmos's wavering soil return mission, I do hope they get that back on track. And in a similar vain, best of luck to MSL which will be sent on it's way next weekend.

There's not no effect on recovery arc, but the change in feel of the canopy flight due to the fact that you're moving the control range of fronts, rears, and toggles relative to your shoulders is going to largely mask that. You're right that the set up is more about personal preference than anything. And because you're freakishly tall and have long arms you can set up your brakes to do nothing until shoulder level and still reach the bottom of the control range with your hands all the way down. I choose my riser length based on how long my arms are and what is a comfortable spot for the top end of the riser input control range. Then I choose my brake line length to put the bottom end of the toggle input range at a comfortable place. Then I (and this is the really important part) stop worrying about it and jump.

Was this in reply to what I wrote?

Please excuse me for rearranging your post a bit I think you, and many people before you, misidentify the source of said "deep down" information. I think the "pressure from negative public opinion" put that information there. Pressure put on by people who have conjured up a stake in a woman's personal business out of thin air, because it allows them to feel moral gratification without having to do anything themselves besides be angry at other people. History has shown you can make people feel good or bad about doing anything if you repeat something to them enough times, especially if you start at any early age. That's what these people are counting on or else they wouldn't keep putting these initiatives on the ballot cycle after cycle, failure after failure. A zygote is not a meaningless mass of dividing cells, nor is it substantially like cancer. A fetus is alive and it is human. And extremely late term fetuses could very well survive on their own. Anyone of the "ilk" making those arguments doesn't speak for me, so personally I consider those all straw men. However... neither a zygote nor a fetus is a person. There is a difference between something being "alive" and something being "a life" (i.e. an individual/person/citizen with rights and so forth.) As I've written and elaborated on before, defining something to be "a life" starting at conception is not in touch with the reality of the reproductive process. Drawing other lines in the sand between conception and birth is more defensible, but still ultimately silly. Holding an opinion is certainly one thing, trying to get definitions that are completely out of touch with reality written into your state constitution (and the constitutions of other states) is something else.

It's, "a square peg in a round hole." ...given your mangling of that idiom, I wouldn't bet on you, as safe a bet as you claim it to be. ...are going to either have lunch or not have lunch.

Usually if someone asks you, "What do you want to have for lunch?" it's a courteous way of stating, "I'm hungry, let's go eat something." You can respond in a few ways... If the person stopped in the doorway to ask and they look ready to go right this minute, chances are they have some place in mind and I'll probably ask them if they have a craving for something, courteously deferring the choice to them because I'm betting they're already made it. If the person comes and sits down slouching in a chair and asks then they're obviously not very excited about lunch and they probably have no idea what they want to eat. In that case I'll try to come up with a couple places I haven't been to in a while or that aren't on the usual rotation because I'm thinking they've already thought about the usual places we go and none of it sounds appetizing, hence the slouching in the chair. Or you can "STFU and just say yes!" which doesn't even make any sense because they didn't ask a yes or no question. Also, I'm not sure how you are supposed to both STFU and say something.

I don't sympathize with OWS protestors, and I understand the reality of what happens in prisons is what it is and that it's not supposed to be desirable, but frankly that attitude is bullshit and it's reprehensible. Rape is second only to murder on the list of worst things you can do to someone. Tacit approval of it as a form of punishment is as disgusting as saying, "What did she expect? She had on a revealing outfit."

Well, it is actually pretty simple IMO... The Constitution states what the Fed Govt can and cannot do. Protection of the 2nd is there... There is no claim about health care. When someone tried to claim that the right to self defense does not include modern weapons... I think it is only fair to ask if the 1st protects on the printing press or the internet as well. So when a guy tries to just ignore the Constitution and then also pretend things are in it that are not... I think it is fair to point that out. Er, sorry for the confusion, I was actually making a joke about universal health care stopping at blood-letting to add to your argument not argue against it. I think your stance is pretty clear and is not part of the arguing past one another that I was referring to. Kallend's opinion on "bearing arms" seems to be an amalgamation of "a lot of people that have guns probably shouldn't, legal or otherwise", "the people as a whole don't bear any significant arms when compared to the US military which was the original thing the 2nd amendment was trying to protect against", and "fewer guns in general would be a good thing." What results is a sort of gelatinous in-actionable viewpoint from where he picks apart bad arguments but doesn't do much else.

Lamest answer ever. So then your comment about healthcare going back just means that cat scans are not covered. Battle axes and blood-letting for all! But seriously... The point raised regarding arguments about whether the government should do/allow something vs. arguments about what the constitution says is important. It causes a lot of people to argue past one another on this forum and elsewhere, but in most cases that's all people want to do anyway.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2425#comic

Meh, your complaints about women all blur together.