taks

well, as i predicted, there was NOBODY in my voting place. i got there at 2 or so and it was EMPTY in and out in 5 minutes or so. piece of cake. everybody rushed out this morning to avoid the crowds, and ended up creating crowds. leaving easy pickins for folks like me that had left thier IDs at work the night before... oh, and btw, nartwak is right, there is no other national referendum on any ballot that i've ever heard of other than the president of the US. voting is a state thingy and each state has its own rules. the common rule, however, is that you must be a citizen and you must have registered 3 weeks before the election (i think 3). it's constitutionally mandated. registration is designed to prevent "vote early, vote often" mentality, though it is obviously not fool proof. taks

actually, i'll bet that the "high turnout" really isn't as high as they're estimating. people are worried there will be a high turnout so they're voting early rather than putzing around. we'll see, but i bet it's not much more than ever in the end... i'm not going till around 2 or so. taks

eh, depends. my requirements: 5 references preferably written by other PhDs or professors (easy to get once you're working), 60 credit hours (the MS qualified for 30, even though i ended up with 45), a B average or better (no probs there but linear algebra is a beeeatch), an entrance exam this january covering 6 subject areas broadly and then focusing on 4 subject areas narrowly (an all day test), a post acceptance test which amounts to a literature review of your dissertation topic, and then of course the dissertation and defense. some schools are MUCH tougher. some are MUCH easier. it just depends (undergarments). taks

it depends on what you're going into, too... my MS actually got me into a design position (electrical engineering) in a research/advanced development group right out of school and, similar to tricrit, allowed a quicker promotion path. most of the BS guys worked for me, essentially, and many still weren't doing heavy design work after several years. a PhD will get you into intense research quickly, too, and usually counts as about 3-5 years of experience when getting hired. lincoln labs at MIT, bell labs in helmdale NJ (several nobel laureates there), the ONR et. al. regularly hire PhD's right out of school as researchers. i'm doing the PhD after starting work route so i can't really say how long it would have taken had i started before working. i've been in the industry almost 10 years now so it certainly would have been many years ago... as it stands, it will take another 2-3 years even though i only have 4 classes left... ugh. like tricrit said, however, once you start working, the PhD or even the MS doesn't mean anything if you aren't good at what you do and experience rules. oh, btw, my reasons are both academic (i wouldn't mind teaching a little) and professional. i'm on the company resume and a PhD will help open doors for projects. also, if i ever get enough gumption (i'm from missouri, sorry) to start my own business, a PhD is a door opener there, as well. taks

great soundbite but hardly relevant to the "lie" comment that oddly you and deganawida both agree on... this is the emotional plea, actually (aka an appeal to emotion). taks

Your argument is flawed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> incredibly. just because there are valid reasons to not choose a lifestyle (or anything for that matter) does not mean we as humans don't choose it anyway. nobody wants to die in war, either, yet people regularly enlist for just such a purpose... choosing said lifestyle does not imply choosing the consequences. taks

better than you? your argument failed and i told you why. any assumption on your part that i was pretending to be "superior" is your own problem. it is obvious i am more educated in the methods of constructing logical arguments. perhaps i have been a bit snide in making that distinction, but nowhere have i stated that i am superior. FURTHERMORE, why do you post if you do not expect replies? if i am to disagree, should i not provide reasons why? my tirade is proof of a counter argument that you have yet been able to respond to. that's an ad-hominem. i pointed out your flawed logic and you tell me i have a lack of tact. debate is a logical construct that you have failed to demonstrate and i clearly stated why that is so. not sure what you're getting at here... i haven't judged you at all. i've certainly judged your ability to formulate a logical argument. how clear do i need to make it that you have yet to present a logical counter to my assessment that you are confusing tolerance with acceptance? i also pointed out that you use this argument method (straw man) regularly. it is not my fault if you can't face facts... your argument failed and i'm the one that caught it. sorry. comments which STILL fail to address my argument. tell me, do you understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance and can you logically conclude that your previous quotes don't indicate the contrary? rhomal, your posts clearly indicate that YOU think you're self righteous in your tolerance and you expect others to feel the same. HOWEVER, by confusing the issue of tolerance vs. acceptance, and expecting others to feel the same you have placed the standard of "accepting all beliefs as valid" on them and then likewise judged them based on their failure to live up to such acceptance. whether you like it or not, belief systems regularly rule out accepting others' lifestyles, behaviors and practices. just because somebody like bush (or me) does not accept your version of religion, or islam, or whatever, does not mean they are not tolerant. two TOTALLY different ideas. taks

tolerance does not mean acceptance. you're applying a double standard. it's OK for you to believe one way, but if someone else disagrees with you he is "intolerant?" just because you accept someone else's view on religion is valid, doesn't mean they are required to accept yours. i personally find ALL religion flawed, and pointless. yet i tolerate everyone's right to worship as they please. nowhere in the definition of tolerance does it say i have to accept such opinions as valid, however. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you dont think to move forward its going to require more? Looking as us now becoming stagnet as a people certainly isnt getting us to where we need to be. When the guy in the whitehouse flat out states my religion isnt such I think we still have a ways to go in understanding, tolorance and acceptance. And saying 'well to bad in essence' just is not good enough, for me at least. As I know we can do better then that. But we are certainly not going to get their being complacient. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> exactly what does that have to do with anything i said in my (included) quote? you do this often... you need to take a course in logic theory. this is known as a fallacy, particularly a Straw Man argument. this is the 2nd time in two replies you've made to me that your counter argument has absolutely nothing to do with what i said. if you want anybody to ever take you seriously in life, perhaps you should learn the basics first. sorry, but i have a very hard time accepting any argument when it's based on such obviously flawed logic. most colleges offer introductory logic classes, and, if you're not old enough for college, i would recommend doing some web research. try more than one site since it isn't always obvious what constitutes a fallacy based on a single example. taks

tolerance does not mean acceptance. you're applying a double standard. it's OK for you to believe one way, but if someone else disagrees with you he is "intolerant?" just because you accept someone else's view on religion is valid, doesn't mean they are required to accept yours. i personally find ALL religion flawed, and pointless. yet i tolerate everyone's right to worship as they please. nowhere in the definition of tolerance does it say i have to accept such opinions as valid, however. taks

north or south? i'm assuming you mean south korea. they've also got the highest cell-phone penetration in the world. sk-telecom bought out shinsegi a few years back and they had, at the time, something like 70% of the population buying their service. taks

adsl is usually limited to 10-15000 feet from the sub-station. cable, however, does not have such a limitation (it has some distance limit, but i don't know what it is). taks

hehe, couldn't resist. the "unlimited" part, btw, would probably mean "unlimited downloads" which many places tout... really they mean, "fill your bandwidth continuously and we won't gripe" since no matter how you slice it, if BW is limited, total DLs for a month will be too either way, 8Mbit ain't too shabby. i'm capped at 2Mbit down with my cable at $55/month. if i actually had cable tv (i have Dish Network), it would drop to $45/month. of course, i really do get 2Mbit nearly always. if i don't, it's because the server i'm hitting doesn't have the pipe. not because i don't. mark

visit phil's site first. eye opener to say the least. i love this guy (platonically, of course). i've been following him for several years now. since he was a mere babe in the woods sort. bright, but that isn't his strength. i see it as an ability to state the otherwise obvious in a sea of misdirection. join his BBS if you're really interested... i post as taks there, too, but not very often. i prefer just to read from the informed astronomy types what they think. taks

the kerry camp has decided it will just declare "victory" in the case of a close election. of course, this means nothing in the end, but it does help opinion... the funny part about it all is that realistically, with a voting population as large as that in the US, 1% error occurs based purely on counting failures. nothing we can do about it. odd that 547 (or whatever) votes made the difference in the end last time... i'd go into some long, drawn out reasons why but it serves no purpose... on we vote! taks

btw, botox vs. redbirds here we come! taks

gak. taks

ohhhhh... nobody in particular. btw, if you're big on the "moon hoax," phil's site is a great place to go get owned. he puts the kebosh on that garbage quite well. taks

not sure if anybody has ever heard of phil plait but he's appearing at the columbus state university science center in columbus, GA. phil runs the site badastronomy.com and goes by the appropriate moniker "the bad astronomer." of course, not that he's "bad" as an astronomer (he actually refers to himself as a fair to good astronomer, but that's another story...) but he has made quite a name for himself debunking bad astronomy/science in movies, print, tv, etc. (like, every time a spaceship flies by and you hear a "whoosh" kinda stuff...) anyway, here's the link. i figured i'd post this since there's been so much pseudo-science bandied about lately... ahem. taks

uh, maybe, just maybe this is why they had to do the 270 loop around because they weren't skilled enough to drop the plane given their position prior to the loop around? you provide evidence contrary to your own position only one sentence after the conspiracy theory and don't even see it... this is why PoTC doesn't like me. i'm educated (extremely educated) and informed. i get my news from more than one source - biased foxnews AND unbiased CBS AND unbiased CNN AND unbiased MSN AND the AP AND reuters AND... get the point? pseudo-science doesn't pass by me and i call him on it, regularly, and he whines. he'll whine about these latest three or four, too. also, i'll admit, once he starts calling people stupid (often), i'll report him. btw, the difference between what i'm doing here and an outright flame is that i'm attacking PoTC's methods... big difference. taks

btw... Scientific Method explained... taks

this is the problem with nearly every one of your theories. ou have a gut feeling that there is a conspiracy, then you go find evidence to prove your theory rather than test it. testing a theory means, in a nutshell, "try to disprove it first". you fail this every time, PoTC. when will you get it? just thinking you know what you're talking about doesn't cut it... get some education and learn how to perform REAL critical thinking. btw, the plane did not hit only the first ring of the pentagon... it was on the ground first (it hit the helipad) and travelled into the 3rd ring. the photos CLEARLY indicate that AND, it's pretty easy to tell that a truck bomb did not do such damage. sheesh, "conclusive" in only your eyes... keep banging that drum. taks

*sigh*... here we go again... ok, any BG3 would NOT be following the old bhaal line. it's done and has been stated as so many, many, many, many times. that said, just because a game has a sequel number does not mean it logically follows the previous incarnations. the world is rife with stories that have nothing to do with their predecessors, other than their name. furthermore, why should it be assumed the city of baldur's gate ONLY had the bhaal thing in it's history? pretty busy area, balduran himself was pretty famous... certainly a "3" could mean nothing more than "the 3rd episode of the city's history"? taks

not what i was referring to. you're offering an argument that is not relevant. try again. i was specifically referring to the fact that the intel clinton had, coincidentally the intel the entire world had, was that saddam had WMD. two years ago, EVERYBODY thought saddam had WMDs, hence the resolutions to prove he had destroyed them... remember? please read my statements carefully if you're going to offer counter points. perhaps wrong, but still not a lie. try again. perhaps again, but no matter how you spin it, bush has committed no crime. clinton lied under oath, a clear felony. clinton was summarily impeached by the house, and then acquitted by the senate. the latter occuring because the senate fully believed the impeachment was "punishment" enough, btw... opinion regarding the bush slam most certainly. either way, clinton is a liberal and the rest of the world likes our liberals. can't the same thing be said about bush? why didn't you respond with that when weiser_cain tried to give credit to clinton in the first place? it works both ways buddy... besides, you should read the rest of my comments before spouting the rhetoric. on one hand, liberals LOVE to talk about how much clinton did for the economy, yet on the other, he wasn't "fully responsible" so it wasn't his fault. i acknowledge the latter in every discussion i've ever had. you need to pick which way you want it... either the economy IS the presiden't fault or it isn't (or something in between) and stick with it. ah yes, master rhetoric, i must be as you say... taks

again, he had false economic prosperity, nothing real. the gains were fake and the results were that we ended up back at the beginning, literally... all of the "gains" that we realized during the clinton administration were erased. they were erased, of course, because they didn't really exist in the first place. the current bush started out with that crash and managed to create growth... to say "neither bush had" an economy is kinda not seeing the forest through the trees on this one. to throw a loop into the discussion, btw, neither president had anything to do with the situation. at least not directly. bush's tax cuts helped, but congress had to approve them. clinton had a surplus, only because congress wouldn't approve his spending. honestly, d'ya think we'd be in good shape if national healthcare had been passed? hint: no. in contrast as well, had bush pushed for the big medicaid spending bill with a democratic house and senate, it wouldn't have passed, either, and he'd probably have a surplus. funny how that all works. all things considered, the one benefit i can see with a kerry presidency is that nothing will get done... at least not as long as republicans control the house and/or senate. taks