taks

uh, no, NASA never said that. if you look at the film, it quite clearly shows them trying to push it into the ground - rock. twisting and all that caused the flag to wiggle about. since there's no atmosphere on the moon, there's nothing to dampen the waves that went through it. when it finally does stop, it is still, almost stiff (there is a stiffener bar in the top to hold the flag up). taks

shadows fall in all different directions even here on the earth, with only the sun as the light source. the crosshairs appeared behind due to over saturation of the film. basically, the cameras' exposures were adjusted for the grey features of the moon and the bright white suits reflected too much light into the aperture. a common problem with high contrast pictures. uh, no, not even plausible. the evidence is overwhelmingly against such a farce. as you noted, there were literally 10s of thousands of people working on this and none have come forward. this type of secret could not be kept with a crowd that large. that's why i posted the link above... taks

it was over 40 years ago. ? we did have a political necessity, and kennedy made it very clear, publicly. we also had a HUGE build-up. it took years and we spent billions. already been disproved over and over and over again. van allen himself has said that you'd have to be in the dangerous area for a few days. the astronauts went through it in less than an hour. over 40 years ago. experienced project leaders were already in their 40s and 50s at the time, putting them over 80-90 now. people grow old and die. these guys were 400,000 km from earth, on the other side of the horribly ionized van allen belt (you used it earlier but ignore it now) and we had just first started putting satellites in low earth orbit. this is hardly evidence, it was actually not a surprise. other than all the evidence. lets see, film, pictures, rock samples (1000 lbs. i think) oh, and also the mirror they put on the moon to reflect light that is used regularly to verify the speed of light (among other things). Moon hoax debunked. By the way, the badastronomy site uses SCIENCE to debunk this one. not conjecture, flawed logic and outright fabrications unlike most HBers (hoax believers). it's big business, actually. oh, btw, the guy that started the whole hoax thing, bill kaysing, died recently. taks

you've probably alredy been assassinated and you are now actually an MIB posting in disguise... taks

still, the phrase "public use" had an intent... but this theory is invalid when you state (as i do) that the right was already there. it has just been misconstrued, IMO. plus, you've always been able to sue, regardless. there is no expansion of power either way. i think that's a bit of a slippery slope as well. as i stated, the system already exists to handle such cases. all a different interpretation on "public use" means is a different definition of the boundaries a community will be held responsible for. people will still be able to sue regardless of what the SC said, and the same system will handle such suits, it's just that this ruling put a precedent on how the suits should be decided. as noted, just because the avenue is there does not mean it is truly available to everyone. at issue is poor people on potentially expensive land. they just don't have the resources to fight government encroachment. the same problem crops up in situations where land values skyrocket, followed by property taxes, and the poor that lived there for decades are forced to move (colorado gold mine/casino towns are a perfect example). well, i could care less... IMO, she's the least ideological of them all, and i've disagreed with her as much as i've agreed with her. i would be surprised if this were true, however. taks

tales of the unknown (aka the bard's tale) on the C64 is one of my fondest memories. my brothers and i (both younger) would stay up till 6 in the morning playing them... 20 years ago. *sigh*... sorry to hijack the thread r-p, but this keeps it pseudo-stickied! taks

well, that's a slippery slope argument there. that concept is only feasible if the city itself makes a decision AND, they don't care too much about re-election. mayors typically don't have the power anyway. some sort of city council (or state legislature) would eventually be required to approve such a deal AND, most likely, said business owner really needs to put together a valid business plan before anybody will bite. taks

uh, that's exactly what i said. i just pointed out the interpretation of public use meaning higher tax revenue vs. roads, buildings, etc. i think the reason i differ on this, however, is that the concept would not have been specifically addressed in the consitution had the framers wanted local governments to make this decision. i.e. they said this is a right that is borne into citizens, not something that could be interpreted away... hence, my view that the SC blew it. actually, it's not an expansion of federal judicial authority. all it would have been is a "you can't take it away, and neither can we" statement. there was no new power granted should they have sided against. if you heard what the "fair market offer" was compared with "fair market value" you'd probably change your mind on this. less than 50% of assessed value. he's the only one close either way. i've already been reading he wants to stay on for a while. taks

no. first of all, inertia and gravity are identical (if you subscribe to the concepts of einsteinian relativity). second of all, given above assumptions, the fact that a planet is moving in space is irrelevant. i.e. there is no absolute frame of reference for movement, therfore it makes no difference that we are circling the sun, sitting still w.r.t. the sun, moving about the galaxy, etc. in other words, in order to affect a change on the earth's movement, it takes the same amount of force regardless of what direction it is moving w.r.t. some other object. all the people in china jumping would simply move the planet in the opposite direction, then it would come back due to mutual gravity as would the people. a system cannot change itself from within, it requires an outside influence. nukes going off propelling matter out of the system would qualify, btw, but it would take a lot to make a difference. of course, if you don't believe in relativity, some of these things behave a little differently though the newtonian principles of action/reaction still apply. taks

i suppose i drew their fire... i'll admit, i'm rarely diplomatic regarding the capitalism/socialism debate. there is no need to be. the evidence beats everybody over the head time and time again (ad nauseum) and they just.don't.get.it. it is tiring at best. you and i do normally agree on said things, btw... taks

ok, here's the list.... in other words, intel offered discounts to buy intel products? AMD is whining here for an unfair advantage on their behalf. perhaps they should consider the same?

by enforcing other laws that are already on the books. explain how a company can actually be either moral or immoral? these are concepts reserved for human beings. if a company witholds a product that somebody paid for, that is theft, and is illegal. this is unfair trade at best, and thus the rightful domain of the government to adjudicate. or maybe we should just get the government out of business, at which point capitalism will have a chance. your comments are quite often the result of a gross misunderstanding of capitalism. taks

tough call, but filesharing can also mean trading something that somebody else legally owns. i'd say this is at least not unfair, but maybe needs more discussion for reasonable alternatives (danged information age). taks

uh, the supreme court is generally considered the authority on what is and is not constitutional. as a result, saying "Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of this knowing that this is essentially unconstitutional" is meaningless because in the end, this is their call to make. that said, to argue their decision is really a matter of interpretation. they (the 5 justices in favor) interpreted the "public use" clause of emminent domain to mean "more tax revenue for the community=public use". i personally disagree with this interpretation vehemently, as did the 4 remaining justices. unfortunately, the only way this will be overturned is if one of the liberal (er, left leaning) justices retires. as far as i know, the only one close to retirement is rhenquist, and he was a dissenter on this issue. taks

IBM PCs did.... they all ran on DOS (disk operating system). any of the previous kit computers would not be PCs by my definition, either, nor such things as the atari 2600. C64 was certainly a computer, just not a PC in the sense i refer to them. but oh do i miss my days with the C64! taks

aye, tis true. magnetic fields vary with the inverse square as well, though they are not directly dependent upon the mass of the two bodies as with gravity. well, i suppose that depends upon the magnet (lodestone, for example). it would have been fitting to say seemingly more powerful. taks

bump since it's not stickied... however, i would not refer to a C64 as a PC as it was not a complete system. it had no OS, and only a small amount of RAM (no HD, no floppy, etc.). taks

odd that such a weak force, as gravity is always referred, is inescapable and acts at infinite distance with the same force (uh, a rather redundant phrase i suppose). contrast that with the strong magnetic force, which decays quite rapidly. taks

yup... i suppose somebody could get crazy and create a list of fantasy crpgs, which would include even the bard's tales, might and magics, D&Ds, etc... taks PS: that would not be me, btw...

mathematics really isn't a science per se as it is axiomatic, and science is not (at least not necessarily). mathematics is incomplete, but so is nearly any system. what i've always liked about mathematics is the fact that it permeates the universe. 1+1 = 2 is universal. taks

also said D&D, which the wizardry games are not... the first three were also available on the C64, IIRC. taks

kaftan, the problem is that i'm not currently a woman. so, consequently, i cannot fathom thinking like a woman. it just doesn't compute. smoke comes out of my ears. even everyone saying "oh yea, you'd wake up thinking like a woman" just doesn't magically change my hardwired maleness. suffice it to say, all i can think of are things that a guy would want if he were actually a hot chick. and, consequently, when it comes to women, we men tend to be pretty single track thinkers and less than imaginative at that... sorry. taks

i'd certainly become a lesbian. i'd also follow reveilled's well structured 1-step plan to self gratification... often. taks

interesting... a couple colorado springians (?) just broke the crawling record. 44 hours or so (not sure about exacts). they had to take their bathroom breaks with one knee on the ground. by the 2nd night, one of the guys was puking as he crawled... he had, of all things, motion sickness. reading aloud, crawling, what else? very strange all the records that guiness records, let alone those that the people attempt in the first place. taks

once, actually. and he was not caught inside the USA, commissar. keep your arguments relevant. the point of patriot act is inside the USA, and was exactly what i was referring to. catching some high ranking official al-qaeda member in a cave in afghanistan hardly causes the same worry as in a mall in burbank, CA. you mean phrases like "logical reasoning" and "rational thought"? as opposed to using the more grounded phrases like "knee-jerk reaction" and "emotional response". i suppose, yes, i do use logic and reason to attack your rather knee-jerk and emotional arguments. guilty as charged. exactly where did i say that? show me, please. i did not ignore the basis of your post. your post clearly stated that these situations were the only ones you've heard about. please reread... you hear about pimps, counterfeiters and other "injusticed" folks because they are the ones that seem to be getting slighted (suddenly their actions aren't criminal, either, which makes your logic even less sensible). we don't hear about the application of the patriot act because of the reasons i've already pointed out. it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening. also, if you'd note, i've clearly stated that i do not agree with many parts of the act. some provide powers that are not constitutional. taks