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

it was live-action animated, actually, which means they painted over actors (for many large scale scenes, like battles) and quite frankly, sucked donkey nuggets. ugh. taks

bit of fallacious logic there, commissar. tell me, exactly where do you hear anything? the media. duh. not every story makes it to the media, and most terrorist arrests are not even reported. successes are rarely reported, as they garner little interest and, in this case, may also stir up unwanted fear. taks

a point that is really only valid at atomic scales... and has little to do with free will. random behaviors drive our physical world, not mental. however, random processes only have so many areas within the gaming world that make sense to me, since it is my purchased game that i'd like to play my way. btw, nearly every pseudo-random number generator used in nearly every crpg in existence has been horribly flawed. it really detracts from the gaming experience when "trends" in certain rolls are common and readily observable. my fav is in BG when a mage scribes scrolls with a 95% chance of success. it is nearly impossible to scribe more than 2 or 3 in a row. i think 4 is my record. even when i have a 25 int it still fails after 5 or 6 regularly. they borked that one badly. taks

this is a different issue. by "reloading to get better scores" you essentially ruin the balance of the game. the randomness is designed to create characters with certain mean hit points and some variance. your average roll of the dice over several levels will create appropriately balanced characters. of course, the same goes for rerolling stats to create an uber character... which i do taks

i'm only curious as to why anyone cares? i mean, let's be real... if he's that bad, ignore him, and don't watch his movies. pretty simple. taks

generally speaking, IEEE journal submissions are penned rather well. quite complex, certainly, readable by any average joe, certainly not... the dividends are a continued paycheck and maybe some small amount of notoriety as the guy that figured it out. our company does not have many algorithm types yet, so any work in such areas gets attention quickly. taks

i'm not a fan of randomness. while i agree that replayability may be high, there are reasons i don't play some of the other variations of characters in crpgs. i just don't like them. in a game where i do not control how my character progresses, i may end up with a character i don't like. certainly this provides a new option for me, but just because there are more options does not mean there is more fun with each. my game would then have a certain percentage chance of not being fun, regardless of the quality of the game overall. taks

not a book but... Geolocationi of Frequency-Hopping Transmitters via Satellite i'm trying (halfheartedly) to assess the impact of local oscillator phase noise on the accuracy of a geo-locator. unfortunately, most of the literature is wrt satellites as individual elements in the calculation, and i am interested in individual elements in a local array. even at that, the direct impact is not explicitly stated, and i will likely have to convert the resulting mixer noise into some average that can be added into the total noise. i know, i'm a geek for a living. i would not otherwise read, it puts me to sleep. taks

hype. parts of the patriot act are ok, but many parts are not. the things ender point's out about intelligence agency communication are valid, and should be addressed. however, they should be addressed in a manner other than the patriot act. taks

blue river, colorado. just on the other side of hoosier pass before you get to breckenridge. that has to be the most beautiful place in the world. there and steamboat. taks

no, it's not. everyone has exactly the same rights. rights don't apply to women, children, blacks, gays, straights or any other specific group differently than they apply to you or i. the government's job is to ensure that those rights are applied equally. no additions need be made, just use what you already have on the books. discrimination in private institutions is not the government's mandate. it is also not legally allowed to pass a law regarding it. big point here. it's not the government's mandate to regulate who, what, when or where we marry. that's up to individual states at best. remember, the power of the federal government was spelled out very specifially. the intention was for a bunch of little democratic laboratories (the states) in which the people could choose to live. if you don't like the laws in one state or county, move. period. the federal government was intentionally limted in this way. to say that "oh well, since these screwed up "rights" are already in place, we must then pass even more restrictions in order to deal with them" is actually the short-sighted viewpoint. we keep using this excuse as the federal government slowly takes more and more power from the people. at some point, we'll have nothing left. nobody. rights are rights. they are clearly spelled out in the bill of rights. gays don't need extra rights just because they're gay. they can worship as they choose, own a gun if they choose, religion is a right that applies to everyone, equally. not just gays or blacks or whomever. yes, actually, it does. this was intentional to keep the federal government from growing too large. too bad the idea failed. oh, and with regards to black civil rights, that was again the federal government allowing something that was unconstitutional. black people already had the rights, the government just failed to enforce those rights. taks

if i google my actual last name, there are 87 results, most of which refer to a body of water in alaska. taks

and given lingerie's popularity, why are men in such a hurry to rip it off never to be used again? taks

btw, contrary to popular belief, there is no "break" with taxes for married couples unless the 2nd wager earner is bringing in significantly less than the 1st. until recently, there was actually a penalty because the charts did not double your exemptions yet the added income put you into a higher tax bracket. now, however, you do get a double exemption, which is the same as if both partners were filing single. the only real drawback for gays that are married is if only one works, in which case he/she cannot claim the other as a dependent. taks

show me where in the constitution one group trying to push their values on another is the government's mandate. again, show me where this is even constitutional. i made my point quite clear, the idea of marriage is NOT the government's responsibility. tax breaks for married folks is an unconstitutional reach into our lives by the government. who cares? if the government got out of it all together, it wouldn't matter. same point i've already made a half dozen times. sorry dude, but where, again, in the constitution is the "right" of marriage granted? all people have equal rights, gays, straights, whatevers... marriage is not one of those. no, it doesn't. it should be out of the business all together. find the clause in the US constitution that says marriage is a federal mandate. find the clause that says gays, or straights, or some ethnic minority should have their rights spelled out more clearly than the rest of ours. taks

perhaps the government should just get out of arenas that are not within its mandate to regulate? seriously, why does government have to sanction any marriage? why? in the case of the US, exactly where in the consitution is this a power granted the federal government? btw, in case any of you didn't know, up till bush's repeal of the "marriage penalty," it really was NOT a good idea to be legally married if both spouses worked (well, at least if the 2nd wage was a significant portion of the total income). i got crushed on taxes the first couple years. of course, it does not matter anymore as my wife stays home with the manchkin. the same goes for the whole concept of "equal rights." we all have the same rights in the US, as stated by the consistution. nowhere is there an explicit right to a job, which is the primary focus of equal rights legislation. the government is unnecessarily messing in the lives and functions of private citizens and businesses (even publicly traded companies are "private" in the sense that they are not owned or run by the government). given today's more open society (a good thing IMO), any company that blatantly discriminated would be beat up on the marketplace. that would be their punishment, not government sanctions. taks PS: yes, i realize bush didn't actually do the repealing. congress did. bush just proposed it. either way, it was his baby.

uh, hate to tell you but that's not a problem with a small government. that's a problem with government that tinkers with its capitalist economy. take away the benefits of laws that benefit certain companies and markets over others, and the concept of lobbying goes away, as does all the money. why bribe an elected official if he can provide you no benefit. everyone's favorite communist... it's amazing he didn't bankrupt us. you should never keep silent. that doesn't mean our ideas are flawed, just our methods. unfortunately, the concept of a perfect society is not feasible. there are always those who would rather do it differently. there are always those who expect more from a system than they provide. there are always those who would rather cause problems for the sake of causing problems. everybody's concept of "perfect" is different, as well. this will exist as long as we maintain free will. taks

funny, now, that we find out kerry actually did worse than bush at yale. so funny. oh, and i voted for bush. approximately 2/3 of the way through my phd in electical engineering. i'd say i'm not all that stupid based on that. an atheist, therefore the religious title doesn't apply. i'm an engineer, therefore i am not rich (nor were my parents). as for the fourth, well, kerry's a blueblood and it shows. to say that i thought he was just worse doesn't really fit. you should drop the rhetoric oerwinde. it doesn't suit you and in the end, you'll fall into one of those four categories in everyone else's eyes... i'll leave it to you to figure out which. taks

yes, actually, any group founded by communists trying to "separate the church from the government" has an issue in my book and i don't even believe in god. btw, ellester, show me the clause in the constitution that says "separation of church and state." sorry, it doesn't wash. the ACLU is every bit as bad as the christian coalition from the other side. a pox on both camps. taks

i dunno, maybe because he knows that sweden is tiny and has very little impact in world politics? the "wave" of international belief is to hate the US because it is the only remaining superpower, and bin laden is smart enough to know that the only way he can get any attention is to fight the US. remember, the last time bin laden "took up a cause" was against the russians in afghanistan. not coincidentally against the 2nd to last superpower. duh. your brilliance amazes, kaftan. taks

a rarely mentioned cause for high oil prices is the value of the dollar. oil is traded in dollars and the dollar is weak on international markets now. though this is not the only contributor, it is certainly a factor when the sheiks just aren't making as much per barrel when the dollar is off 40% (or more) compared to other currencies. very little, in fact is being driven by iraq. odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil, but even saudi arabia only accounts for 13% of US supplies... go figure. taks

every one of the "violations" by israel fails to mention any repercussion for failure to comply. none mention any threat of force, and most actually just say "bad israel." israeli "resolution violations" are all of the chapter VI variety, which calls for negotiated compliance. nearly EVERY resolution against saddam's iraq, on the other hand, were filed under chapter VII, listed as "threats to peace." these resolutions also mention article 42, which authorizes military force in the event of non-compliance. none of israeli sanctions mention this, btw... check your facts before speaking, it will prevent you from looking like you don't know what you're talking about. taks