taks

i'm sorry, but i cannot dub you anything higher than a knight, though you clearly deserve more recognition and perhaps a loftier title such as "lord alanschu of the nerds" or something. taks

according to the wiki, a version of the myth written by ovid (a roman) had medusa starting out as a priestess of athena and she got raped by poseidon. jealous athena then transformed her into the monster. i had heard this version before but was not sure where from. not that i don't think game devs tinker a bit, or that it's not a bad thing (sometimes it irks me, too), but you can't really blame this one on them. taks

i did carraba's for dinner tonight. yum. best chain italian on the planet. better than macaroni grill by far. they modified their menu, too, and the bill was cheaper than i normally see in spite of having two desserts which we normally don't do. oh, tonight was wine wednesday, too, and it took about an hour and 15 to get seated (we arrived 40 minutes into that duration). of course, i made my way to the bar and, well, time and a bottle of wine make fools of us all. happy new year everyone! taks

not to be stupidly obvious, but have you tried to open the task manager to see if anything specific comes up when you click on a link? i have word 2007, but have not tried to follow any links. in fact, i'm not even sure i have it running on my XP system or not (it was originally for my vista laptop). taks PS: i'm like grond.

that's called the century club. we did it every thursday night my last semester in college while watching the simpsons and cheers with whatever show was in between (recall, i graduated college in 1990). we then hit what is now called the grotto for the evening before returning to the pad for more of the same. depends upon how used to alcohol you are. the hard part is that shots of beer ar difficult to gurf (no foam). uh, while playing video games all night... ahem. actually, i stopped playing games my senior year and did not really get back into them until BG came out. i bet i stayed up 16 hours or more playing that a few times. never the 27 that "sir alanschu the nerd" is reporting, however. taks

broken heather graham and jeremy sisto as a couple of heroin addicts. very strange, though i missed the first half hour so i might have missed some crucial plot elements. the movie jumps back and forth in time (flashbacks) a bunch and at the end i wasn't sure if it was flashbacks, or just possible scenarios playing out for heather's character. bender's game the newest futurama movie. hilarious. it has a D&D mixed with LoTR theme, btw. best of the 3 movies released this year, IMO. only one more to go. hopefully comedy central gets the contract renewed for new episodes. horton hears a who the CG one with jim carrey as horton. it was pretty funny, worth watching. of course, we got it for john and he refused to watch it (playing his new DS game). my son is a pill. taks

which one would that be, awesomeness? i'm thinking about texas roadhouse for dinner. inexpensive and, oddly enough for a chain, one of the best steakhouses in town. granted, the food ain't fancy, but all i really care about is my steak anyway. taks

nor can it dispel the group hallucination we're all experiencing right now... yeah, howling1, right. that crazy dwarf is a myth and we all know it. taks

i'm still playing IWDII, though i'm cheating heavily because, well, the game cheats. my son is toggling between uncharted, devil may cry 4 (both for PS3) and the new clone wars game for the DS. i have to help with DMC4 every once in a while, but he's kicking uncharted's ass (waaay better than me at it). taks

looking back i'd say retard is a better word. i can't believe how much we used to drink. my brothers and i used to stay up all night playing the first two bard's tale games* as well as the first few might and magic games. for the M&M games we had a big piece of plywood hung on the wall with all of the maps for the overland grid laid out so we could see where we had been and where we needed to go. good times. taks * technically Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale for the first one.

i think you have just earned the title "nerd," alanschu. the last time i was up 36 hours straight it was because we were doing the centurion club: 100 beers in 100 hours. we actually did the lesser variety of 64 beers in 48 hours i think (friday at 5 till sunday at 5). hard to remember either way. taks

hehe, about the only thing safe right now. heck, isn't the OLF team planning to double the defense budget? not sure where i heard that. i'm eternally tied to government work even though i would prefer otherwise. taks

hehe... like dr. evil. taks

same thing happened to me at the end of the dot-com bubble when my company bellied up. i wanted a job that i would like as well as a location i could deal with. up till the CO gig, my best bet was a job near quantico for what was realistically a pay cut (technically it was a $10k raise, but the cost of living is ridiculous there compared to melbourne, FL). instead i ended up in CO for the same pay, but same cost of living to boot (and a killer lifestyle here). anyway, the moral of the story was that even though we were pushing our savings to the limit and it got a bit scary, you can't just take anything because you might end up miserable and no better off than unemployed. good luck, btw. taks

no, i'm not, i'm talking basic science here, walsh. i asked you to go out and do a little research, all of which would easily prove my point, and all you can do is call me obtuse. i must say, if anyone is being deliberately obtuse... again, do a little research, walsh. gravity is a law, not a theory, and the equation that approximates its effect is what i posted earlier. are you really trying to say that the fact you and i are stuck on this planet is a theory? nonsense. actually, they are assumed immutable. again, look at the list i provided. 18 of those laws are thought to exist. they are fundamental to all science. you and krezack seem to be operating under the assumption that once einstein's theories came along suddenly "the universal law of gravitation" got demoted. that's absolutely ridiculous and that's not how it works. there's no hierarchy. theories don't "get better" then become laws nor does the reverse happen*. laws are very fundamental concepts that are universally assumed true, and almost always can be directly tested, e.g., the effect of gravity between two objects. i expect this nonsense from krezack, but not you. taks * the point being that it's not like a military rank, i.e., "theory" does not necessarily mean "less than law," but rather, it usually means more complex than law. i generally DO use the ranking of "theory = tested hypothesis," however, but only for simplification since the terms tend to get mangled.

Laws of Science. taks

yes, that is the claim. taks

walsh, YOU are not listening. the simple point is that the "law of gravity" is indeed an empirical physical law, regardless of what happens at atomic (or massive) scales. do a little research for god's sake. a simple google search would suffice. pick up a physics text. the law is a simple formula F = m1*m2*G/r^2. krezack's comments are utter bull****. geebus, haven't you guys had a single physics class? taks

see, that's just nonsense. this is what pisses off all of us in the US when nonsense claims like this are made. what proof do you have, or anybody for that matter, that we don't care? huh? if you want respect out of the few of us in here that defend the US, you're going to have to give a little in return. taks

yeah, don't we all think the europeans would be better off saying "heil hitler" every day. damn if only the US hadn't stepped in it would be soooo much better. taks

the latest edition of the IEEE Spectrum has another article on the concept but i have not read it yet and, unfortunately, i cannot provide a link to it nor am i allowed to paste it anywhere since it is copyrighted material (requiring membership to access). i'm assuming it is more of the same, btw, since the original was through the IEEE anyway. i doubt we'll hear much more till someone comes up with a bona-fide application. oh, and i will state again, since apparently someone is incapable of bringing up a simple wiki page, physical laws of science are not even similar to mathematical axioms, and they are indeed laws (please, try to tell me ohm's law is not a law, please). they are natural properties that are assumed true, and generally can be tested directly, e.g., gravity. as noted by wrath, all einstein did was show that gravity does not work in relativistic scales, but it works well at normal scales. taks

no, einstein showed that gravity does not work as newton calculated at all scales. he did not prove it wrong. it is an approximation, but all laws are approximations. do a little research, krezack. you are demonstrating your ignorance again. this is basic science learned in the US at the age of 12 or 13, and any high school physics class should have gone through why it is a law and not just theory. people seem to confuse what "theory" or "law" means for whatever reason, perhaps because they don't have any formal training, i don't know. "just a theory" doesn't mean something is weaker than "a physical law." generally it simply stays "just a theory" because it is too broad to be a law. the universal law of gravitation can be tested directly. relativity, OTOH, cannot, at least, not all of it. that said, calling evolution "just a theory" doesn't in any way decrease its importance. too many just don't get it. taks

yeah, it's one thing to control people that are in your employ, particularly those that sign agreements that pretty much hand their lives over to the government in exchange for the ability to work on the projects they work on. it is, however, an entirely different matter to control hundreds if not thousands of people from the general public as well as the media itself. just ain't happening. and yes, i can say that every one of your 9 points is incorrect because the onus of proof is on you. basic science and physics say you are wrong on every count or you simply fail to rule out alternative possibilities. however, i'm bored so i'll humor you: 1) squibs: millions of pounds of steel, concrete and other materials are pushing down from the top and you don't expect windows to be blown out except on the floor immediately below the current one collapsing? the onus is on you to prove they cannot occur several floors down. and quite frankly, it simply makes sense that the shockwave propagated rather rapidly and many floors were compressing at a time. 2) several blocks were essentially on fire and you call videos of things blowing up evidence of something? prove that these things could not have occurred simply as a result of all the damage. rule out all possibilities. the list is long as it includes any pocket of fuel, compressed or otherwise, pipelines, etc. 3) reports of explosions: no, actually, all those earwitnesses heard what sounded like explosions, not explosives. two of the tallest buildings in the world were hit by planes and dropped to the ground and you don't expect to hear loud noises? 4) Videos show an explosion before the collapse of the South Tower: really, where? have you ruled out every possible explanation, such as the elevators crashing down from 70 floors up? apparently people were thrown out and witnesses said it was a mess. 5) flashes: no kidding. a building is falling compressing who knows what and you're surprised at seeing flashes? how much of the building still had power? what other combustibles were present? gotta rule 'em all out. 6) structural failure doesn't do this.. this requires explosive force: bull****. you completely fail to understand the stresses going on inside these massive structure collapsing. 7) speed: i watched the videos, they pancaked one after the other so they collapsed exactly as fast as i would have expected them to. you're basing the speed thing also on a shockwave that only extends one floor below the currently collapsing floor, and limiting it to gravitational acceleration. sorry, but this is basic physics. perhaps you should entertain getting an education in this field to understand better? dust: wow, no kidding. you mean two of the largest buildings on earth dropped and you're surprised that much of the concrete got pulverized? this one is amazingly stupid. 9) WTC7: in my opinion, you've already demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of a "controlled demolition" so simply saying "it exhbited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition" fails the sniff test. sorry, but this is just one more bit of conjecture on your part. taks

ah, gotcha. well, if you're qualified for FCC licensing stuff you're qualified to put in some time at the GL Group. that's the kind of experience they typically use. i went out today and bought a bunch of "supporting" supplies for xmas. i had to get two gifts and look at another that my wife wants to get me. one of the gifts i was supposed to buy was a comforter set for the two of us, but i need michele to see it first. the other was a DS game for the squirt. the one i looked at was a knife set that i've been wanting (cooking, not carnage). somehow today turned into a ridiculous amount of money after i ended up getting new gloves for the squirt and new thermals for both of us and an oil change. so yea, i'm buying. it just won't end. taks

not one bit of which is proof of someone placing bombs, it is simply proof of your incomplete scientific knowledge as well as those putting forth the whacked out theories. and, sorry, but thousands have looked at the evidence outside of just the NIST folks. as i asked, are we all lying and incompetent, too? if you want to appeal to authority the first thing you're going to have to accept is that "our side" has a bigger one than "your side," and in light of the fundamental scientific mistakes in every one of your 9 points (at the end of your post), your authority isn't looking very authoritative. taks