taks

why do you refer to your fraternity as a frat, hurlshot? i've never known a national fraternity that does not regard the term frat as derogatory. taks

hurlshot, i'm curious why you refer to your fraternity as a frat? i've never known a fraternity that does not explicitly consider the term "frat" to be derogatory. in fact, we are taught that almost immediately upon pledging. taks

getting involved will be a requirement. the gaps in between classwork and studying are gut-wrenchingly boring. you may simply want to go hang out in your dorm's common area. you'll meet people eventually, making life at least bearable (as i recall, you don't otherwise partake in the ultimate friendship maker, alcohol, right?). taks

since i graduated in 1995, and classes were about $400 each then, $3k was actually my entire tuition plus some. i had a job managing a bar, too, so i wasn't hurting for cash. my classes now are about $1100 each. i'm signal processing and communications, though i started my MS doing digital and switched half way. ended up with 5 extra classes. phd is the same, DSP/comm. i'm rodger ziemer's last student before retirement. seems strange to fill that role. meshugger, that's the hardest part, IMO, about school now. one point i did not mention is that motivation to study is difficult when you'd rather hang out with your family. keep that in mind, too, pixies... getting it ALL done now may be a good idea. taks

i'm done with classwork, yay! only the dissertation to work on. however, i do work 50 hours/week on my job, so finding time to really concentrate on my studies, which are nearly identical to what i do at work, is difficult. spending all day working through equations, then coming home to derive even more leaves me mentally exhausted. way cool. not so for mine, though i was paid for my MS thesis. i was only 1/4 time, however, but that was still $3k/semester. in spite of the fact i think graduate studies are inherently easier, i still think my undergraduate days were much more fun. hopefully you're going away to school, pixies. your only real responsibilities will be to yourself, i.e. learning, which is the closest you'll get to perpetual vacation the rest of your life. taks

but so are you... tis a complicated world of deception we live it. taks

so you would have bought it in california, eh? hmmm, how about colorado? btw, IMHO, cant == plant. i'm on to ya buddy! taks

hmmm, maybe mkreku actually IS perez? what's the world coming to, eldar/cant == hades/sand/visceris, mkreku == perez... my head is spinning. taks

me gots a nifty new 650W antec now. i think i've posted on this before, but the modular cables that came with it are actually a pain. none of them are 1-1, so you still end up with a mess of cables hanging around because everything needs its own cable these days... sigh. taks

assuming you mean "smugness," i'm guessing you watched south park last night? taks

i hope you wouldn't make your costume with pansy tights... i agree, btw, live large, personal gain. no matter how bad the world gets, you could still make sure you and your own were still living large. taks

at least it didn't attempt to reformat your HDD. taks

not to point out the obvious, but... you're proof of my point. taks

well, i got a good one with the antec case i bought, but of course, it was an antec tru-power supply which i've had good luck with. i'm with meta on your problem, btw. taks

btw, my new 7.1 receiver is outstanding. one of these years i'm going to buckle down and get a real receiver, one of the high current models, as well as a speaker set from definitive technologies (oh,my,garage do those speakers sound nice... better than polk). taks

yet another ideologue attempting to demonstrate how "bad" we are to the planet. sigh... still, a neat little demo. taks

i was a paid research assistant while working on my MS (referred to as a GRA: graduate research assistant). no such money for the PhD, however. i asked and was told "unlikely." co-op jobs are key as an undergrad, or summer internships. taks

uh, they are being treated according to the geneva, actually better, in spite of failing to live up to their end of the bargain. regardless of how you classify the detainees, they're still being treated as POWs, and POWs are not afforded constitutional rights by any document, geneva or otherwise. taks

but your complaint was about something gonzales said in regard to guantanamo, so yes, it was specific even if you didn't intend it to be. you can't expect to extrapolate a very specific instance to the broader case then claim you weren't speaking of specifics, without some notice from folks like me. that's disingenuous. given that gonzales' comments were simply that the habeas corpus clause is not absolute, and that's what you guys are complaining about, it is more than relevant: he merely restated what we already know to be true, because it is written into the constitution. kaftan said: the hypothesis you made, intentionally or otherwise, was that those people that were pressured to resign were dragged through the mud, merely because you highlighted that whole comment. bush's complaint was that gonzales was being dragged through the mud for political reasons, which is different than what happened to those that got fired. btw, to anyone that thinks political appointees don't serve at the whim of the president: does that mean the cabinet, or better, the entire white house administration should be able to keep their jobs, too? taks

uh, the guys held in guantanamo were in armed conflict, or caught committing treasonous/rebellious acts? not sure what your point is here... those later found to be semi-innocent were released (some of which ended up getting killed while in combat against US troops, or suicide-bombing). the phrase "illegal combatant" was applied merely because they needed _some_ way to describe these guys since there is no war, and none of the conditions for geneva have been met. potato, potahto, same difference. taks

er, not really. my point is that the current document is obsolete. any future document is not necessarily irrelevant, but it certainly does not place any burden on those willing to sign it. that we would choose to live, and fight, buy any standard is evidence enough that we are civilized enough not to commit what would otherwise be considered "war crimes." london ain't gonna torture US POWs should something go awry between us. those that need to work to live up to such a standard, namely every devloping nation on the planet, won't sign anyway. those are the countries that "need" something like geneva, but will never abide by it. of course, violating geneva only means something if a) you lose your war/battle/skirmish and b) the conditions of your eventual surrender result in pardons for any war crimes that may or may not have been committed. the only "developed" nation i would truly worry about not upholding such a document, btw, is russia, but they're barely "developed" in any real sense of the word. their history indicates very little regard for human rights. he doesn't have to be. his job was to interpret and enforce the constitution. the "more power to the state" concept is thwarted simply by the fact that the constitution already gave the power in question to the state. the AG's job is to uphold that. he was merely advocating exercising the power already granted his branch by the constitution. my point is that they did not uphold their end of the geneva in the first place, so it does not apply. that they are being treated as well as they are is testament to how civilized WE are, and further proof that the geneva doesn't really mean anything anymore. taks

perhaps sand is merely attempting to recruit more folks into his maze of instability? perhaps that's how he got there? hmmm... taks

no, it is his defined job: to interpret and enforce the laws of the land, including the constitution. should an infringement occur, the case can be taken to SCOTUS for review. this idea that congress somehow has domain over the AG is a joke, and THAT is the abuse of power which should be raising the eyebrows. taks

i'm not sure what you don't get here. i never said there shouldn't be rules, i merely agreed with gonzales that geneva is obsolete. it does not apply to _any_ situation we've seen in over 30 years, maybe even 50. certainly something probably needs to replace it, but even then, only the signatories are held to it, and those are the countries that really don't need to sign onto anything they're going to follow anyway. why is this so hard to understand? why do you keep misreading my statements and intent? nonsense. what rights are being denied? our guantanamo detainees are treated more fairly than any other POWs any enemy has ever treated ours. habeas corpus ain't a geneva right, so what's being denied? taks

uh, no, read the constitution. there's an "out clause" on the habeas corpus concept in which habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." clearly anyone participating in terrorist acts against the US, particularly on foreign soil, is committing not just treason, but an act of rebellion. habeas corpus is not an absolute right, which is where you seem to be misled. the same can be said for freedom of speech: not all speech is protected, like it or not. he's right, face it, you're wrong. taks