LadyCrimson

Saw the Star Trek. In brief, I'd give it a B- and would generally recommend it. I enjoyed the humor level a lot and the actors/renewed characterizations were largely fine. Bruce Greenwood as Pike is awesome. I didn't mind the "reboot" issues much at all, but I was disappointed with the old-hat plot, rather dull villian and plot hole contrivances so huge even I noticed them at every turn. Mostly it's action eye-candy+noise+laughs. Which is entertaining...but as a fantasy action vehicle I think something like IronMan was much better executed. PS - I was amused that the "redshirt" guy was the actor who voice Disciple in KOTOR2. I laughed so loudly in the theater I may have embarrassed myself...

Ah, I get it now. Explained like that, I can understand that perspective. I'm not sure I'd agree with it absolutely 100% (maybe 80%, heh), but I can definitely see where you're coming from. I also understand that type of perspective (I'm on a roll! haha). The only problem I have with it is that as humans we often don't know what human interests might be, in regards to nature. Those cute pandas might be more important to humans than we're aware - if not the pandas themselves so much, maybe something about the ecosystem that they're involved in etc. We're still barely learning how all of these things tie together and I'm the sort who'd rather not make assumptions, so it bothers me when people aren't even interested in doing more in-depth studies about such to find out. We can't do those studies if they don't exist, so I'm for trying to preserve such if we can. We can't possibly try and save every microbe with a bunch of maybes and what ifs in mind, of course, but I think it's prudent to at least not always shrug a shoulder and give up and say why bother - that's too defeatist for me. Also, humans like hope, and in order to feel it they sometimes need to save those "cute little critters" that they can emotionally relate to. They don't generally "relate" on a mass scale to number-filled reports they may not even understand...er...or something. So if appealing to the mass pocketbook by parading pandas around gets a lot of donations to the WWF or any other nature/animal/science study/protection group works, fine with me.

There's nothing like getting the big debt monkey off your back. Congrats. I've been thinking about fostering cats for a couple no-kill shelters, instead of having my own, because it always makes me so sad to see an unwanted kitty, but I'm not sure I could handle the giving them up part if they found people willing to give them permanent homes.

It's oft irritating to be told the same guilt trips over and over but I don't see why you'd feel truly guilty over things you can't personally control outside of using the power to vote. Most of the time the articles I read and people I talk to aren't that puritain about stuff. Those that are...well, they're extremists. Or eco-scientists with years of built up frustrations and what they see as constant set-backs/losing long term battles. It won't all burn away as long as man leaves anything to be burnt in the first place. edit: too long

Hence the word "apparently." I'm admittedly not educated on Aust. politics etc. I read a few articles related to the fire (some from Walsh's link) and many had quotes like this : "The mismanagement of the south-eastern forests of Australia over the last 30 or 40 years by excluding prescribed burning and fuel management has led to the highest fuel concentrations we have ever had in human occupation," said [David Packham] from the Climatology Group at the School of Geography & Environmental Science, at Monash University. So I thought it might not be a bad possibility to bring up. I probably should have said "done less" or something like that rather than "delayed", perhaps. Never been isn't the same as never will, but I understand your point. Not to be contrary, since I agree that preventive fires etc. are helpful, but man-made fires are not "letting nature take it's course," it's man trying to control/minimize damage to human lives/structures from nature's wrath, as we try to reshape land to our needs and/or live in areas that aren't "tamed" enough...and the reshaping causes problems (for man). Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most "nature" fires due to lightning...or volcanoes...and then most other sources would be from man (arson, campfires, backfires etc)? Isn't the real issue less about what's "natural" and more about what is safer for humans? It sounds to me what Greens want (in this case) is not to have zero fires...only that they want nature to dictate what burns...not man. I can't blame them for that attitude...but the problem with that of course is that we can't predict lightning strikes etc. and where they'll hit and plan our housing structures and safety measures around them, so it behooves human safety to take at least some precautions. Hence why I prefer a middle ground, with fire breaks and the occasional clearing fire, even tho in many respects I'm also a Greenie. Heck if I lived in a major fire zone, my yard would be nothing but rocks, and if I want shade on my patio, I'd buy an umbrella. heh

Yeah, I'm sure most are better at multi-tasking sounds or whatever it is, than myself. Something about having the music directly in my ears like that makes me lose track of anything else. I can listen to music through speakers and I'm not bothered. But then I'm more likely to hear a loud thud in the other room. Headphones for me are like reading a book where you're so immersed that the house could burn down and you wouldn't notice.

The last time I had walk-around portable music was in my late teens when the cassette Sony Walkman's were all the rage, even tho they weighed 20 pounds (ok, j/k..more like 1 or 2). I went through three of those and then one day in a park I was almost run over by a bicyclist when I couldn't hear him coming/his polite "coming through's" in time. I haven't used one since. Edit: Wanted to come back and add that I have nothing against such, really. Hubby did have a portable CD player and I tried that briefly ... but I hate earbuds and couldn't get used to the world-disconnect anymore. I don't feel safe. I'll take a small boom-box car-camping, tho.

My mother's birthday, then hubby's birthday on Mother's Day ... or is it, mother's birthday on Mother's Day, then hubby's birthday ... or ... mother's birthday then hubby's birthday then Mother's Day ... or ... I find May very confusing.

Walsh, I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss here. What kind of debate can there be over your original words? Do you expect people to say - "I disagree w/you, Walsh, save the forest, let people burn?" It's never as simple or as black and white as you're making it out to be. --Aust. is in a very very bad drought. --They've (apparently) been delaying/not doing the back-burns very much for 30-40 years, which imo would mean it began long before "Green" became uber-trendy and highly politically influential, so the impact of "Greens" vs...in terms of bringing about the tragedy...might not be as strong as that article is trying to paint. --It's not unlikely before the Victoria fires that a lot of the residents themselves protested burns, because it would 1-ruin their pretty backyard views and 2-drive them out of their homes during the actual burning, ie be inconvenient. --The Victoria fires seem to be an extreme case where everything that could make the fires bad and badder came together at once. --There (apparently) isn't a very good warning system for the people who lived in that affected area and many had no clue of serious danger until the fire was practically on top of their homes. Perhaps if there had been, those roadside deaths would've also been prevented because people would've left sooner. Not saying that's absolutely true, but could be. --There's nothing like tragedy to make groups turn in the opposite direction (don't burn, the smoke sucks...oh wait, I lost my home, why didn't you burn...). As for myself - I think controlled fires now and then to lessen the ground debris can be a good thing. The desire of many to keep forests/wildlands exactly as it is right now forever (burned forestgrounds aren't exactly tourist-attracting) is ludicrous and always has been. But it could also, obviously, be overdone - some burning ("natural" wildfires included) is needed/healthy for nature, some not - and that is where the ecological danger may reside. Some "Greens" are going to say all burning is bad (I'd heartily disagree) while some non-greens are going to say "burn it all down" - there should be a medium in there somewhere...the problem, as always, is getting groups of people to agree where it is.

In California 2005, the most popular newborn names - Daniel and Emily. They cycle around. For unusual names (for the US anyway), one of my nieces is named Usha, which is an Indian/Hindu name.

I love my tech toys, no doubt, but while I wouldn't want to be completely unplugged, I can't imagine being entirely immersed either. It numbs my mind after a while. edit: but I certainly get antsy when the power goes off for a day

A 10th grade teacher did an interesting experiment ... to have students unplug for a week. No tv, no pc, no iphone/ipod etc. No illusions that anyone would stay unplugged, but a 'just try it for a week and see." Some broke, either intentionally or by force of habit, but some rediscovered books and relatives, etc. And then there was this person: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lo...029,full.column

Well, I've been trying to research steroids for a few hours now and while none of what I can find would be called "definite absolutes" (wiki's, medical and weightlifter articles full of jargon I can barely understand etc), it has led me to several high probability conclusions: 1 - the concept that being on steroids means you have to be bulked up to silly or noticeably obvious proportions in order to gain benefits from using them is false. You can use them and have no one ever think you're "bulked up." 2 - 5-15 pounds of weight gain due to steroid-enhanced ability to "grow extra" during training is likely enough to make a difference in performance and that isn't going to make you look freakish at all, especially if you're 6' 10". So you could use them to go beyond your own natural capabilities but not get too carried away w/the muscle growth. 3 - there have been plenty of athletes accused and/or proven of steroid use (track and field, cycling, etc) where what they wanted was endurance/speed, not "power". Cycling, of course, also had the rampant EPO and other "cheat" abuses - which could also benefit basketball/hockey/anyone else if they didn't like steroids. *correction - I guess EPO are steroids? 4 - Most steroids allow faster muscle growth through greater (anabolic) recovery, but there are others that help increase strength which allows for greater stress to be put onto a muscle. 5 - (paraphrased from one article I read) Steroids can have a physiological "pumped" factor that endurance athletes may covet. Anabolic steroids increases production of blood red cells, meaning more blood available in the body during a steroid cycle. This may/can actually increase blood volume and greatly improves the oxygen carrying ability of blood, in turn increasing the efficiency and endurance of skeletal muscle cells. (edit - after more reading I gather EPO is the steroid in question here, I'm confused about blood doping vs EPO, too much info out there to sort through argh) Obviously, I'm not a doc nor a pro athlete of any kind, so I really have no idea how big a percentage boost to performance of all the various types of athletes there might truly be or whether it's "worth it". But it's food for thought and imo if all true, steroids would certainly benefit more than just "power" people.

I don't know, but I'd suspect there's probably no real proof either way. There's too many variables. It might help with speed of turning, just like it might help with jumping higher...better muscles, better speed/reflexes maybe. But if you can't read a pitch well or have lousy hand/eye co-ord, nothing will help you except random luck.

@Calax - time for a frame? Today I did nothing very worldy interesting, just like yesterday, and am about to get my daily dose of Red Sox.

That's partly what makes so many fans so mad/annoyed - not only that a popular player cheated rules but that most of the time, they probably didn't need to. A terrible batter is likely to still be a crappy or minor-league quality batter even on steroids...but a good batter would still be a good batter, likely w/lots of RBI's and a high OBP and so on - but the HR is the "money shot" and apparently 15-20 HR's isn't enough to get the 50-200 million contracts.

Steroids don't help a batter actually be able to hit the ball, either (so the text I bolded in your quote) Sounds like false logic to me. Now, with more power behind a hit when they do get a hit, I can see/believe that more power=more propelling force, which would help a ball to fly that extra several feet out of a ballpark - but that's if the ball is hit in such a way that a HR would even be likely, in the first place. There's a lot more to getting hits/HR's than just how much power is behind a swing. Some of the best HR hitters in history were around before steroids, and some were even really skinny. I don't see how one can conclude that a possible enhanced ability to jump higher, run faster, turn/swivel/dodge faster, etc. absolutely cannot affect jump shots or the ability to handle a hokey stick vs. (claiming it can do so with) a baseball bat. If you can jump higher/swivel faster you're better on the court and could maybe dodge/skate your way around better than if you weren't on steroids.

They're much safer to sit on than exploding barrels.

That kinda goes along with getting more publicity. Baseball hasn't had as much time for PED stuff to go "underground"...not to mention the possibility, like you said, that at least some of the NFL thing is more image than reality. I also object to the idea that PED's won't help players outside of baseball as much. Anything that means you can train harder/more often with better results and build more muscle mass etc. etc. helps any athlete. But most aren't going to really notice or pick apart a linebackers ability to block/defend with more stamina/effect/agility (or whatever), while a batter suddenly hitting 50HR when last year they only had 15HR is going to be noticed by every fan in the stands.

... Bok, you killed me with that one. Win7 looks pretty ... but as mkreku said "I want from an OS is something that's as direct a path between my own applications and my hardware as possible. No BS, no resource hogging extra fluff, no draconian security systems." Pretty isn't enough, nor are "new features" I have no need for. More info required.

The most important question about any potential game-forum gathering is, of course: Will there be crates?

Some of those are really funny ... but mostly only if you've seen the movie in question. Like: DELIVERANCE: Tourists experience local hospitality. I'm not this-type-of-creative enough to come up with any on my own, tho.

Hahahahah. If you want to believe that, that's cool. Obviously, I don't. My opinion is that baseball gets more publicity, as well as the game itself being more focused on individual "stars" then football/hockey. I like this article about why baseball has the steroid spotlight vs. football. While it's mostly a "here's some facts + here's my opinion" piece, imo, it probably has some validity. http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/weblogs/...ls-steroid-era/

So you think other sports don't have a lot of chemicals? Somehow I kinda doubt that.

Would help if you knew what general period it was from.