FreeflyChile

I believe that it's certainly possible that there is an extended existence beyond the physical realm - but I also believe that if ghosts exist, they have better things to do than harrass those of us still limited by physical constraints!

i am jealous on multiple levels.

i miss archway!

Rooting heavily against Iowa. I know Illinois sucks, but we at least beat Michigan! and i was there to witness it!

I don't mean to make light of it, but when i first saw the link (i think it was on CNN when it first came out) - my first thought was that it was going to be a link to an Onion article.

I suppose being born in a favela in Rio is something you do, but I don't know how much choice you have in the matter....

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BJIG986#at What say you, death penalty opponents? Should we spare his life because he might be deemed innocent in the future? I say "do whatever's cheaper"

Do you feel that's any different from what presidents traditionally do or, that some recent presidents have done or attempted to do (not being sarcastic - i am honestly curious)?

That's very encouraging to hear. Another quick question (which, as DSE suggests, may be best saved for another week or so) - My understanding is one of the nice things about Windows 7 is they are removing all the crap software that usually comes installed with a PC - so you can pick and choose what you want with it. I understand that XP users have to back up their drives because the installation of 7 completely formats the hard drive. Vista users, on the other hand, can just install the upgrade. Will the upgrade from Vista to 7 remove all the junk, or will I have to do it manually after-the-fact?

So I figure this may be the appropriate forum for this question: I hate, despise, and absolutely loathe Windows Vista - i bought a computer that *should have been* extremely beefy last year and Vista just sucks the life out of it... So has anyone here had a chance to play with Windows 7 with video editing programs or graphic-intensive programs (like games) and seen any difference between this and Vista? I want to upgrade to Windows 7 ASAP to finally be able to get the performance out of my machine I should have had all along, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any actual evidence/experience as to any noticable differences running resource-intensive software.

I suddenly had a flash back to the Simpsons episode where Homer was leading a would be legalization bill but they stayed at the rally until one day past the election. Or the Bill Hicks bit... "woah, man, i thought it was Fat WEDNESDAY!"

I was in Iguassu Falls a couple of years ago visiting my now-fiancee's family and we spent New Years at a party there. Best New Years I've ever had.

Political commercials. I HATE those - they have never EVER made me like the candidate more. Just the opposite, usually they make me dislike the person more.

This just sounds to me like the way to do it as either a) a trial run to 'see how it goes' - so that you don't undo a bunch of legislation that then you'd have to re-draft or b) the way to get this done without pissing off the sectors of the population that would be up in arms about having the laws actually changed.

Interesting thought. I'd like to add that the really intelligent are probably able to either sustain, contain or conceal a disasterous situation until it's REALLY bad - and thus the catastrophe (one that would be exposed earlier on with the less intelligent). I think that with intelligence as it relates to the President, I don't think that one can really gauge the true results of a President until later on. One can certainly criticize how they think the President is doing day-to-day or the way he handles things or how he goes about his decision-making, but I don't think the wisdom of the decisions can be made immediately.

That's an interesting thought - I remember when the trailers for Independence Day showed the White House being destroyed and people cheered.... We're probably far enough away from 9/11 now that it would probably get a cheer again (in fact, I remember the 2012 trailer tossing an aircraft carrier on the White House..), but it makes you wonder - if an opposing force REALLY blew up the White House or LA, would people be this happy about it? I know it's fiction, but I just find this difference in reaction between real life and movies really fascinating.

I wanted to chime in on this thread as well: After Chicago was eliminated I immediately went with Rio - because of some of the reasons people mentioned here and some additional reasons. 1) the South America thing. I don't think it's actually the biggest reason, but a good one. 2) The World Cup there in 2014 will give them a feeling of how Brazil handles a big event, and what they need to fix in time for 2016. Also, a lot of infrastructure needed will get built for the World Cup so that's a lot less uncertainty in terms of facilities. 3) I'm not sure why Chicago didn't make it but maybe it's displeasure of the IOC with the US for previous games (1996, 2002), but I think that as soon as Chicago was out, I was sure Rio would win because of TV.... The biggest reason I thought Chicago would win is not because of which city was most capable of showcasing the best games (I believe all 4 probably would have done a great job). I thought Chicago would win because from what I understand, the biggest revenue maker is TV rights for the IOC, and the biggest TV contract is one usually paid out by an American TV network. NBC has the rights now, and I think they expire sometime soon - so the bidding would likely be between NBC and ESPN/ABC (and maybe the others, I don't know). Given that it seems like Olympic apathy is growing in the US, and that from what I recall hearing, the TV ratings for Beijing were not that good (all from memory, so i could be completely off). I'd think the IOC would want to court favor with the networks that pay the big bucks and give the Olympics to an American city to stir interest again. Once Chicago was out, I felt Rio would get it because they could still show the Olympics live here at a decent hour. I'm sure the tape-delay from Beijing (with results being available instantly online) did not help NBC last year. My 2 cents. Also, i started this message like 3 hrs ago and then actually had to do work, so i'm sure by now someone has covered these same points. Tomas

This is outside of Obama's views on abortion (because I don't know what they are exactly and don't care to find out right this minute): If views on abortion don't belong in government at any level, then shouldn't abortion automatically be legal? After all, the government doesn't GIVE us freedoms - it limits freedoms we have to the extent allowed by the Constitution. Therefore, the absence of government means no limitations to something you should be able to do legally. Prohibiting abortion is government involvement with the issue.

In that case, the arrest/detention may not be illegal.

The other thing that may skew stats a bit - when i turn off the tv, i rarely turn off the cable box (i just forget) - so i'd imagine that if i was one of the households being surveyed my TV viewing would show up at 24 hrs a day!

Wow, I saw the title and thought "Dragon Warrior and Zelda for the NES were pretty good..."

The cynic in me says that (until recently), w/r/t cars, the reason it might need more service, parts or customer support is BECAUSE you bought American...

I didn't read the report, but is this programming TV or doing things involving TV? I mean - is it 8.2 hrs watching programming or 8.2 hrs of programming + Tivo + movies + videogames?

I think this is a really interesting question. Of course, any President commands a lot of attention and most of the things a President does will sell papers (or internet hits nowadays) because of the influence and power that may result. I do think that Obama is different because the historical aspect of this still has allure to a lot of people, because it's still early enough in his presidency (in my opinion) where we can't tell whether his ideas on the economy (and attempts to fix things), health care, etc, will uiltimately be a huge success, a collossal failure, a moderate success or failure, or be a footnote in history - so there's still the hope that got him elected in the first place. He still has a wow/superstar/celebrity status with the public here and abroad because he's a great speaker - and publically a stark contrast to his predecessor. I think that by the end of the Bush administration the opinion of GWB was SO negative that ANYONE short of Dick Cheney would have at least some sort of honeymoon. Obama's so different from Bush (speaking about personality, public persona - not political leaning) that I think people are still in that whole "Thank God it's not Bush" mode. Because of the way information is now distributed, with the speed it moves and with the extremely short public attention span that we have now as a society, it SEEMS like Obama's been around for a while and he's been in the news for a long time - but it's been only 6 months! As Tom Cruise tells the defendant in A Few Good Men - that's a hockey season! If the economy, in the next 6 months, shows definitive signs of improvement - I think Obama will get the credit and continue to be a media darling. If, in 6 months, things don't change, then people will really start to go 'this guy's no different than all the rest'. I'm not sure if that's fair - 1 year is a rather short period to measure turnaround and recovery from the mess we've been in, but that's what I think. My personal opinion of the man - I like him, he's great publically (I think that this country needs good PR) but after the campaign he ran, I am squarely in 'you talked the talk, now walk the walk' mode. Show me, don't tell me.

What new math?