taks

why do you have to go and throw your political rhetoric into everything? i'd rather watch the sci-fi channel than listen to any more of your moronic posts. taks

i also watched the sci-fi original "they are among us" the other night and almost puked. worst movie i've ever seen. i still don't understand what was "really" going on. it was a mish-mash of scenes linked together poorly at best, and completely unrelated at worst. the acting was believable by the main protagonist, but the jumpy storyline eliminated any chance of salvation... grrr... i'm so annoyed with them. taks

actually, he "pulled out" in the last week of filming for the "documentary." it was during an interview where the filmmakers asked about his drowning incident at the age of 10. the scene was OBVIOUSLY staged. i.e. night was in on the gag. there was sudden "audio malfunction" during his pullout so you couldn't hear what they were saying (lots of cursing by the "publicist")... it was ridiculous. that's my point, btw... night didn't storm out or get PO'd because they were making it into "sensationalist drivel." he was part of the drivel and i was insulted by it. taks

i believe, too, that PCIe probably won't work as well in a mixed bus environment(the e is for express, which is why i used an X earlier). full dedication might be what it needs. taks

ok, who besides me watched the prattle on the sci-fi channel called "the buried secret of m. night shyamalan"? damn. what a bunch of bull-puckey. the two "documentary film-makers" were morons. the whole show was obviously scripted with cheesy actors/actresses OR, real people with a bad script. they made it out like there really was some "supernatural" influence in night's life and that the movies he's made are stories of things that have really happened to him... what a load. i can't tell you how disappointed i was watching this insult to my intelligence. it was so obvious everybody was reading from a script. this was nothing more than a plug for the movie which i had planned to see anyway. grrr.... comments? taks

i think the problem is that it doesn't efficiently use the system memory... i.e. it can't reach its limit... taks

the problem is that AGP has reached its limit, from what i understand. the current crap with the new PCI interface probably IS slow, but so was AGP when it debuted. apparently there are several issues with the way AGP works and the speed of the interface is not one of them... i'll dig through my trade rags and see if i can find anything. a good website for such things is EETimes. taks

hehe, AGP goes away as a standard for video at the end of this year. i believe it is PCIX after that... not sure though. taks

1. yes and no. arpanet is probably what you're referring to. the orignal 'net' was actually conceived by the DoD but implemented as a way to link colleges (and their information) together... here's a timeline link that explains better. 2. tim berners-lee. recently knighted and received $1M award (not sure what the prize was called). he lives in the US. 3. The League of Nations. the LoN was a failure as a world uniter but i suppose it did serve it's wartime purpose. taks

our murder rate is not 10 times higher than anywhere else in the world... it is higher, for sure, but not 10 times. the UN list simply does not contain the murder rate, unless they included it in the "assault" category. the fbi has a list if you'd like to find it. taks

that's not my point gromnir... the INDEX they used for this listing is not based on haves and have-nots in the same sense you're speaking of. the index itself is nothing more than 1) life expectancy as a percentage of the longest (not sure what the # is) 2) literacy rate as a % of the population, 3) enrollment in school through college as a % of population and 4) GDP per capita. the fourth is the only one that really has a "disparity" as the rich can certainly make up for the poor in some sense... taks

not sure if you looked at the charts, gromnir, but the "index" rating is based on 1) life expectancy, 2) literacy rate + school enrollment, 3) GDP per capita. they come up with an index (probably as a percentage of the highest in each category) for each and then average the three together (unweighted from what i can tell). so the "extremes" really don't play a part in the equation... as well, the term "best place to live" is absolutely incorrect as this is a measure of development only... not quality of life. there are actually 112 pages of related data and near the bottom of the list for all is Sierra Leone. taks

the #s for iraq and afghanistan are not calculated (the index is not). they do have some stats on them, however, and they aren't good. life expectancy in afghanistan was a crusty 43 and almost 61 for iraq. 70% of afghanis are undernourished (27% of iraqis). taks

not true... the total crime list, btw, did not specifically mention homicide/murder but the US was pretty low compared to other countries... apparently albania has a MAJOR bribery problem. taks

well, this list is a lot of things, but it is NOT a "best place to live" index. not sure if anyone noticed, but the "ranking" is based on a rather oblique Human Development Index which is a combination of several factors including GDP, education, life expectancy, etc. ALL of the countries listed in the "high development" group are relatively good places to live considering these factors (the UK was 12th, btw). note, too, that all of the top countries have been increasing their HDI score since the evaluation started. the difference between the US and Sweden is 0.017 (1.7%) with the UK lagging an entire 0.003 behind the US. odd that all the GDP #s are in US$ taks

i'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but there is another thread related to the environmental issues if you're so inclined... taks

WHAT FACTS? you've done nothing but make vain attempts to connect world events to some grand conspiracy. where are the facts? i've seen not one bit of true connection/causation nor any evidence of backroom deals. to top it off, you stated quite clearly "I'm pretty sure the only theory that is unprovable..." (bold italics mine...) PRETTY SURE? PRETTY SURE? i thought you were stating FACTS! the FACTS speak for themselves! a fact is undeniable, a truth, that which cannot be disproved... yet quite clearly you state right there that you can't completely back up your claims without uncertainty. must not be very factual (nor logical) then... also, btw, i'm curious how you can state you don't rely on slanted media reports, yet nothing you've posted is anything more than a media report. no documents, no real "smoking gun", just conjecture which i've already noted. taks

your theory and conjecture are just that, product. you've produced nothing but ANECDOTE as fact to prove a point... there is no provable "grand conspiracy" with defense contractors OR oil companies, and to follow up you merely state " Im pretty sure the only conspiracy that is unprovable in my previous post"... by what evidence? you're pretty sure? so you have years of foreign policy experience perhaps as a diplomat? or you're just relying on oft slanted media reports (slanted towards sensational)? get real. if you're going to spout nonsense, at least do me the courtesy of feigned attempts to not insult my intelligence. my point in stating that both sides partake in dubious dealings has nothing to do with your political beliefs. it stands on its own that ALL politiciancs make back-door deals and in the end, cater to themselves first. a by-product of power i suppose. taks

bingo! though i hadn't seen this one previously... taks

ABB? any ideology is frought with problems... power corrupts on both sides equally well. however, the "grand conspiracies" touted by BOTH sides are nothing more than tounge-in-cheeck conjecture designed to rile up the masses in favor of your cause. certainly there are small-scale conspiracies that abound (hence the reason for laws related to such things) but nothing so massive as what product is claiming... taks

that's some awfully potent rhetoric there... as well as unfounded conspiracy. these war-mongering oil giants, btw, contribute to both parties... not just the bush camp. it's easy to provide anecdote regarding the ties between our presence in iraq and all these companies, but there's just no proof of a conspiracy. we're spending more than we're getting back, even after you consider the big "contracts" that our companies are receiving. all these companies that reap the benefits of contracts would have ended up with such contracts regardless of whether we stepped in to iraq or kosovo or not... such conflicts only serve to speed up the process. yeah, sure, we've had to pick the lesser of two evils rather often. even had to remove "democratically elected" dictators. but an oppressive dictator is an oppressive dictator even if the people did elect him 30 years ago... unsupported conspiracy theory product... you're taking the farthest extreme "if ALL of these things line up and happen to be related, then my point stands" position. taks

most definitely... i'd argue it's also not usually to improve our wealth/world position, either... usually it is to help out an oppressed society. certainly our world position has not improve by liberating iraq, nor has our wealth. even the most questionable of our 20th century conflicts (vietnam) was executed in the name of preserving democracy against the tyranny of communism... there wasn't any wealth or world position to be had there. taks

hehe, i believe i made a comment regarding a website quote (maybe in this thread) along the lines of "and this 300lb monkey is who we should be taking lessons of restraint from?" or somesuch... hehehe. there's a profound difference between engaging in an act of war and starting a war as you clearly stated in your first post. neither i nor ender disagree that we haven't engaged in war... taks

not one of those did we actually "start" the conflict... the most notable is korea in which we were ASKED to help. to say we "started" wars does not equate to "invading" a country... big difference, not just semantics. taks

I've accurate sources!!! Medieval kings DID NOT infact walk around barefoot! my guess is they didn't actually "wear" crowns, either... prolly too busy fighting. taks