LadyCrimson

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.

Not enough blood for you, eh?

ply you with booze, do thing to/with you... uh, huh, i see how it is. taks I walked right into that one.

ST is getting really good reviews. I have the impression it will please casual ST fans and non-fans because of plenty of winky nods to the ST:OS and being, largely, a fast-paced action CGI flick akin to the comic movies, except w/spaceships. I also think that I'll like the movie quite a lot for it's own merits, but that it won't feel like Star Trek to me, just a great sci-fi flick. I'm too old-guard...but hopefully I'll be wrong on that. I thought he was awesomely sexy in LoTR and in general, but the stills from ST have him looking plastic-greasepaint faced. Is that a false impression?

I remember the pics you've posted. The one way to get me to talk a lot, fast, in initial social conversations is to ply me with booze. Which isn't easy to do since I generally don't like booze. One on one suits me a lot more than large gatherings, which I usually avoid like the plague. But for the OB forumites I'd try to get over that.

No, in the context you're bringing this up, I don't agree. Enoch said: He is, I assume, talking about rules, not morals. Whether a rule is stupid or not is subjective/moralistic and could be debated forever...the point tho is that if there's an official game rule and you're caught breaking it, you have to play by those rules and take the heat.